beta
Text
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 7,000,000 as well as 6% per annum from December 10, 2020 to January 29, 2021, and from the next day.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 10, 2018, the Plaintiff driven COtoba (hereinafter “Plaintiff Otoba”) around 07:10 on December 10, 2018, brought the half-gu Stoba, 351, U. Ulsan-gu, U.S., U.S., into one-lane, from the surface of the shooting distance of the old railroad to the surface of the academic e-si (hereinafter “Defendant cab”); D driving the said half-gu private distance to the Plaintiff E-si (hereinafter “Defendant cab”); driving the above half-gu private distance to the front side of Otoba, U.S., U.S., U.S., the direction for the progress of Otoba, and driving it to the second two-lanes after the right-hand of the Plaintiff, U.S., U.S. (hereinafter “the instant accident”).
(c)
The defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement for defendant taxi.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap 1 through 3, and 8 evidence, result of physical appraisal commission to the Chairman of the F Hospital of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. According to the above recognition of the liability for damages, the accident in this case occurred due to the main negligence of Defendant cab who violated the method of career change by attempting to change the course from the two lanes immediately after entering the lane bypassing from the small road. Thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the accident in this case, barring any other special circumstances.
B. The plaintiff only sought the payment of consolation money among the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.
In light of the aforementioned evidence, the location where the instant accident occurred is the area of bottled trees required to narrow the lane after passing through the intersection, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the right side of the right side of the right side of the Plaintiff’s Obaba, and the Plaintiff also considered the movement of the vehicle at the right side and the right side of the right side.