1. The Defendant’s KRW 348,597,116 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from March 17, 2014 to February 17, 2016, and the following.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. On March 17, 2014, at around 16:20, the Plaintiff was injured by the front part of the C vehicle running the said intersection from the eroscopic side to the eroscopic elementary school (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”), and the part of the Plaintiff’s front part of the C vehicle running the said intersection from the eroscopic side to the eroscopic elementary school (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”), resulting in the Plaintiff’s injury, such as the closure of the eroscopic part of the eroscopic in detail known and the eroscopic damage of the eroscopic.
(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case").
The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the defendant vehicle.
C. Since the instant accident occurred due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident.
[Ground of recognition] Each entry and video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and 11 (including branch numbers for those with a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of limitation on liability
A. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff was accompanied by the plaintiff's vehicle, and did not wear the safety belt, and since the plaintiff's driver did not properly perform his/her duty of safe driving promotion, the defendant's responsibility should be limited to the appropriate extent.
B. First of all, we examine the allegation of winning the judgment.
The accident of this case occurred when the plaintiff and the driver of the plaintiff vehicle received the work of Han River as well as the work of Han River (hereinafter referred to as Han River) and moved for this purpose, and such circumstance alone is not enough to limit the scope of the plaintiff's compensation for damages on the ground of the same movement.
In addition, the plaintiff used safety belts.
There is no evidence to prove that the driver of the plaintiff vehicle did not properly perform the duty of safe driving promotion.
The defendant's above limitation of liability is rejected.