logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 마산지원 2021.01.06 2018가단100352
손해배상(자)
Text

1. The Defendant: KRW 66,130,805 to Plaintiff A; KRW 3,00,000 to Plaintiff B; KRW 1,000,000 to Plaintiff C and D; and each of the above.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) around 10:45 on January 12, 2010, F driven by Lone Star and Lone Star (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and driven a side-side road of Chang-si, Chang-si, Masan-si G G loaned from the three-distance bank of Chang-si to the front side of the Chynam-gu, Chang-si, the part of the Plaintiff A’s back head, coming from the front side of the right side of the road, was shocked with the right side of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “the instant accident”). The instant accident led to the Plaintiff’s injury, such as brain, brain fladrosis, and fladrating the two pel.

3) Plaintiff B is the wife of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff C and D are children of Plaintiff A.

4) The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the Defendant vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the Plaintiff sustained injury due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Defendant, as the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, is liable for compensating the Plaintiffs for the damages caused by the instant accident, barring any special circumstance.

(c)

1) Determination on the Defendant’s claim of limitation of liability is 1) The Defendant’s liability should be limited in consideration of the above negligence of the Plaintiff A, inasmuch as the Plaintiff A was negligent in failing to walk toward the side side of the side of the side at the time of the instant accident, while the Defendant’s liability should be limited in consideration of the above negligence of the Plaintiff A.

2) There is no evidence to support the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff A did not walk on the side-way of the side-way at the time of the instant accident, and otherwise, the Plaintiff A was negligent by failing to perform his/her duty of care as a pedestrian and walking alone.

there is no evidence to consider.

Therefore, the defendant's limitation of liability cannot be accepted.

(d)

The defendant.

arrow