beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 57,421,222; (b) KRW 5,00,000; and (c) KRW 2,00,000; and (c) KRW 2,00,000, respectively, to Plaintiff C and Plaintiff D.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. (1) On April 3, 2012, E: (a) around 15:15, 2012, while driving a FKJM FKM FK FK FF FF Fax vehicle (hereinafter “the instant Liber vehicle”) and driving the intersection in the direction of toTol in the direction of the doer, E, while the signal, etc. in the direction of the instant vehicle is changed from green to yellow, E would immediately enter the intersection and immediately turn to the left in the opposite direction; (b) Plaintiff A’s G Poter vehicle that entered the intersection (hereinafter “victim”) was shocked into the front part of the driver’s seat in front of the driver’s seat of the instant vehicle in the instant case; and (c) caused the instant vehicle to shock the left part of the H’s vehicle in front of the traffic signal at the intersection due to the shock of the instant vehicle, and caused the instant vehicle to compromise to the left part of the instant vehicle.
(hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”). The instant accident resulted in Plaintiff A, the left-hand side of 4 and 5 cages cages, etc.
Consolidatedly, Plaintiff A is the father of Plaintiff B and the CD, and the Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to the instant sea vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 4-12, 9-26, 10-27, Eul evidence 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the reasoning of the liability as seen earlier, inasmuch as E caused the instant accident by occupational negligence and thereby inflicted bodily injury on the Plaintiff, the Defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the instant accident as a mutual aid business operator.
C. (1) The Defendant’s assertion was negligent in entering the intersection in breach of the duty of care to prevent collisions with the instant sea-going vehicle, which caused the Plaintiff’s failure to wear safety level at the time of the instant accident, and entered the intersection. This is due to the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages.