beta
Text
1. All appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the following additional determination as set forth in paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. 1) The parties' assertion on the ratio of negligence 1) The plaintiffs asserted that since the driver of the defendant vehicle was negligent in failing to perform his/her duty to safely drive the bus even though the location of the accident was an accident, the driver of the defendant vehicle should be recognized to the extent of 70%. Accordingly, the defendant asserted that the driver of the defendant vehicle could not avoid the accident even if the driver of the defendant vehicle was at the speed of the accident in light of the circumstances of the accident of this case where the driver of the vehicle was at night at which the death was unsatised, in light of the situation of the accident of this case where the driver was at night, the driver of the vehicle was at the time of the accident, and the driver of the vehicle was at the time of the accident at the time of the accident, the driver of the vehicle was at the time of the accident, and the driver was at the time of the accident, and the driver was at the time of the accident, and the driver was at the expense of the defendant vehicle.
However, according to Eul evidence No. 1 (including paper numbers), the driving speed of the defendant vehicle at the time of the accident is analyzed at a rate of 59 km per hour. However, in light of weather conditions at the time of the accident, location of the accident, time of the accident, etc., it is difficult to deem the defendant vehicle driver to fully perform his duty to prevent the accident and to safely drive the vehicle. Considering the background leading up to the accident in this case, the degree of violation of the duty of care of the driver, etc., the responsibility of the driver of the defendant vehicle should be limited to 10%
Therefore, all of the plaintiffs and the defendant's arguments are accepted.