beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 11,005,606 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from April 19, 2013 to April 3, 2018.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. A. On April 19, 2013, B driven a C si (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) on April 21:35, 2013, and the Korea Meteorological Administration, in front of the Busan East-dong, Busan East-dong, had the Plaintiff walked the Plaintiff at the crosswalk without signal lights, and caused injury to the Plaintiff, such as the left-hand ske, the left-hand ske, the upper-hand ske, the left-hand spelf, the left-hand spelf, etc.
(hereinafter referred to as "the accident of this case". (b)
The defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid contract for the defendant vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, in the case where the Defendant is driving a vehicle and passing around the crosswalk, B violated the duty of care to confirm whether there is any person, and even if there was a duty of care to safely drive the vehicle, and thus, the Defendant, who is a mutual aid business operator of the Defendant vehicle, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident.
B. Limit of liability: Provided, however, in the event that the plaintiff, as the plaintiff, has a duty of care to safely cross the crosswalk by taking into account the left and right in the case of a crosswalk without signal, it is negligent in failing to do so; and since such negligence was caused by the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damage, it is considered in determining the ratio of liability of the defendant.
In addition, if damage occurs or has been expanded by competition between harmful act and the victim's factors, even if the victim's factors are irrelevant to the victim's causes, such as the risk of physical talent or disease, it is against the principle of fairness to compensate the perpetrator for the whole damage in light of the form and degree of the disease in question.