beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 258,483,388 as well as 5% per annum from March 10, 2013 to October 26, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition (1) B, while driving a motor vehicle C with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.12% on March 10, 2013, while driving the motor vehicle at around 04:21 and driving the motor vehicle at around 04:12% (hereinafter “Defendant motor vehicle”) in Jeju at the time of Jeju, in violation of the signals at the entrance of the bathing beach at the ethbbbbbbal in the Seoul Chungcheong Station, in a red signal, while driving the private distance at the entrance of the bathing beach at the ethal bank at the ethal bank at the ethal bank at the ethal of the Defendant motor vehicle.
(2) The Plaintiff, who was on the rear seat of the Defendant’s vehicle due to the instant accident, suffered injury, such as damage to the number of wood trees.
(3) The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the defendant vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Gap 8 through 10 evidence or images (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.
C. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's liability should be limited since the accident of this case occurred, the plaintiff is accompanied by the defendant's vehicle driver Eul, etc. who is close to the defendant's vehicle driver Eul, without wearing a safety level mark on the defendant's vehicle which he drives after drinking alcohol.
Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence, Eul evidence, Eul evidence, Eul evidence, and witness Eul's testimony, the plaintiff, Eul, and Eul, on March 10, 2013, after having arrived at Halart and having drinking alcohol on March 10, 2013, the plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol. The plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol, and the plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol at Halart's request. The F, who worked at Halart, transferred the plaintiff to Halart's workplace and was under the influence of the plaintiff's vehicle, and was under the influence of the defendant's vehicle.