beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 2,344,564 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from December 17, 2012 to October 16, 2014.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. On December 17, 2012, B: (a) C B is the Defendant vehicle around 4:40 on December 17, 2012 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
A) A driving of a vehicle and driving a vehicle into a large-string area on the port side of the Seodaemun-gu, Busan and tried to change the vehicle from three lanes, the right straight line, the right straight line, the right straight line, at the time. The safety zone exists between three lanes, the right straight line, and two lanes, the right straight line, the right straight line at the time, and the change of the vehicle is prohibited. If the vehicle is intended to change the vehicle at this place, it is unreasonable to change the vehicle without neglecting the duty of care to operate the vehicle safely while taking into account whether there is a vehicle driving in the straight line, despite the fact that there is a duty of care to operate the vehicle in the straight line, while driving the vehicle at a two-lane, the right straight line of the taxi at the left side of the Defendant vehicle, and causing injury to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant accident”).
(2) The Defendant is an insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract for the Defendant’s vehicle insurance.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, results of physical appraisal of appraiser E, purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above recognition of liability, B, the driver of the Defendant vehicle, caused the instant accident by negligence and inflicted an injury on the Plaintiff, and thus, there is liability for tort against the Plaintiff’s damages, and the Defendant, as the insurer of the Defendant vehicle, is liable to compensate for the Plaintiff’s damages.
The defendant asserts that the plaintiff should consider the plaintiff's negligence in calculating the damages of this case, since the accident of this case occurred at the wind, which is the straight line at the scene of the accident of this case, even though there was a temporary stop line at the two-lanes, which is the straight line at the scene of the accident of this case. However, according to each of the above evidences, the temporary stop line claimed by the plaintiff is stopped according