beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 65,728,372 as well as 5% per annum from March 17, 2012 to February 13, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition 1) B is a C-Tank vehicle under the influence of alcohol at around 08:20 on March 17, 2012 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
(B) While driving a vehicle and driving a three-lane road adjacent to the intersection in front of the E-ray in front of the E-ray in front of the E-ray in front of the E-ray in front of the E-ray in front of the E-ray, one-lane in front of the E-ray in front of the E-ray in front of the U.S., the said intersection was an intersection where the sign prohibiting the signal lights and left-hand turn is installed and cannot turn to the left, but the left-hand turn is not considered a sign under the influence of alcohol, and the left-hand turn to the E-ray in front of the E-ray driving seat and the left-hand side of the U.S. vehicle in front of the U.S. vehicle in front of the E-ray in front of the U.S. in front of the E-ray in front of the E-ray in front of the E-ray in front of the U.S. (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”).
(2) The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement on the Defendant’s vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident in this case as a mutual aid business operator of defendant vehicle.
C. The defendant's assertion on the limitation of liability is that there was a negligence on the part of the driver of the damaged vehicle at the time of the accident in this case, and that the plaintiff was negligent in not wearing the safety labelling at the time of the accident, so the defendant's responsibility should be restricted. First, the plaintiff is only the passenger aboard the damaged vehicle, so the issue of the driver's negligence is not related to the defendant's liability for damages against the plaintiff, and the submitted evidence alone is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff did not wear the safety labelling.