beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 42,810,851 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from June 17, 2014 to January 19, 2018.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. At around 07:45 on June 17, 2014, Category B: (a) C car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”)
(i)in the case of the e-driving and operating a e-motor vehicle, the e-motor vehicle of the e-motor vehicle of the e-driving (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff-motor vehicle") opened in accordance with three lanes from the side of the modern apartment to the e-motor vehicle of the e-motor vehicle of the e-motor vehicle of the e-motor vehicle of the e-motor vehicle of the e-motor vehicle of the e-motor vehicle of the e-motor vehicle of the e-motor vehicle
) The top left-hand part of the Defendant’s vehicle was shocked with the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).
2) The Plaintiff, a son, who was on the top of the operation of Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, was injured by the dives of the instant accident, such as the dives of the lives of the lives of the lives of the lives of the Plaintiff’s lives
3) The defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract against the defendant vehicle. The defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract for the defendant vehicle. The ground for recognition has no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, and 8 (the purport of all statements and arguments including household numbers attached thereto).
B. According to the fact of recognition of liability, the Plaintiff sustained injury due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident as an insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle.
C. According to the evidence No. 2, the Plaintiff’s error of failing to wear a safety level while boarding the front line of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and E, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was at fault due to the Plaintiff’s fault of entering the intersection in an unreasonable manner despite the change from a yellow signal to a yellow signal. Since the Plaintiff and E’s error contributed to the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damage, the Plaintiff’s fault in calculating the amount of damages that the Defendant is liable for damages, the Plaintiff and E’s error shall be considered in light of their personal relations with the Plaintiff