beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 6,128,630; (b) KRW 906,163; and (c) KRW 906,163, and each of the said money to Plaintiff A from September 13, 2014 to May 1, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 13, 2014, at around 15:12, 2014, C, a driver affiliated with the Defendant, driven D buses owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant bus”), stopped in front of the bus stops located in the front of the 99 U.S. Do party branch of the Do party branch of the Do party branch of the Do party branch of the Korea Exchange Bank, and left the body behind the left side without taking a balke, while driving the D bus owned by the Defendant. Accordingly, C, as a result, C, a driver affiliated with the Defendant bus, was pushed back to the left side and stopped thereafter, followed the Eddern Fiscro vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”).
(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)
At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiffs were aboard the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11, the result of this court's verification of accident video CCTV, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant, as the operator of the bus on the part of the defendant's side, has a duty to pay the plaintiff A medical expenses of KRW 212,790, towing expenses of KRW 760,00, repair expenses of KRW 4,838,240, transportation expenses of KRW 777,60 (part of rental fees of KRW 7,776,00) x 0.1], KRW 6,750,00 in total of KRW 13,338,630, 630, and KRW 606,163, consolation money of KRW 6,750,00 in total, and KRW 7,356,163, and damages for delay.
B. Determination 1) A - Medical expenses of Plaintiff A 212,790 - Repair expenses of KRW 4,838,240 - Transportation expenses of KRW 77,600 (within the scope of the cost of lending and borrowing, as requested by Plaintiff A), - Totaling KRW 300,128,630, KRW 600, KRW 606,1630 - Totaling KRW 300,000 - KRW 906,1632): there is no evidence to prove that the operation of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was impossible or considerably difficult, and on the contrary, the degree of shock by the Defendant’s bus at the time of the instant accident and the detailed statement of automobile maintenance (as requested by Plaintiff A).