beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' as to the assertion that the defendant emphasizes in this court, and thus, they are quoted by the main sentence of Article 42
2. Additional determination
A. As to the claim on limitation of liability (liability offsetting), in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings and arguments as to the statements and videos set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 10, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, it is recognized that the victim committed a mistake by being involved in and walking the defendant's vehicle on the road on which the sidewalk and roadway are not divided, and such mistake was caused by the occurrence of the instant accident
As such, these circumstances should be taken into consideration in determining the defendant's liability ratio, but the following circumstances, namely, ① at the time of the accident, i.e., at the time of the accident, g., at the road side of the road where the accident occurred, the snow was difficult to walk. The victim appears to have been walking at the edge of the road, which is not the center of the road where the vehicle is mainly driving, ② the defendant's vehicle immediately after drinking alcohol caused the accident, should be viewed as 10% of the victim's fault ratio, such as the judgment of the court of first instance, and the defendant's liability ratio should be deemed as 90%.
B. In a case where the victim agreed not to be punished against the perpetrator in the course of an investigation or in the course of a criminal trial with respect to the determination of a tort regarding the claim for deduction of KRW 30 million, it is reasonable to deem that the amount was paid as part of damages (property damage) unless there are circumstances such as clearly stating that the amount received as at the time of agreement is paid as consolation money (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da46894, Feb. 23, 2001).