beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 2,648,534 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from May 26, 2011 to May 24, 2016.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. On May 26, 2011, the Plaintiff, at around 21:40 on May 26, 201, is under the influence of alcohol on the side surface of the road without distinction between the delivery in front of the water-based comprehensive social welfare center located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu and the delivery in front of the water-based general social welfare center located in 338-4, and the roadway. On the other hand, the Plaintiff is under the influence of alcohol on the side surface of the road that was driven by Nonparty B, who was bypassing the right direction of the wall mountain apartment in the direction of the Seongbuk-gu Seongbuk-gu Seongbuk-gu
2) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with B as a driver.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 5, and 12 and the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above facts as to the establishment of liability for damages, if a driver of a motor vehicle on duty drives a side-road without distinction between delivery and the roadway as at the place in which the accident in this case occurred, B is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the accident in this case, since he neglected his duty to care by properly examining the front and the surrounding areas so as not to shock pedestrians on the road, and due to negligence, he did not discover and shock the plaintiff who was accumulated on the sloping road floor, and thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident in this case.
C. On the other hand, when examining the circumstances of the instant accident by taking into account the following evidence, the Plaintiff appears to have been unable to anticipate such circumstances as the driver B, because the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident, and the Plaintiff was at night at the time of the accident and was at a point where it is difficult for the Plaintiff to find a bypass. In light of the circumstances, the Plaintiff’s negligence in the instant accident seems to be larger than that of the Plaintiff. Considering the situation and overall circumstances of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s fault ratio is 60% and the Defendant’s responsibility is 40%.