beta
Text
1. The defendant's 263,00,968 won to the plaintiff C and 213,750,968 won to the plaintiff D, and 2,50,000 won to the plaintiff A, B, E, and F, respectively.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff A and B’s grandparents, Plaintiff C and D’s parents, Plaintiff E and F’s siblings are the deceased’s siblings.
B. Around 14:30 on April 27, 2013, H driven an Igland Ignan (hereinafter “victim”) owned by himself, and died on the front-hand part of the GM5 personal taxi (hereinafter “victim”) driven by the Plaintiff who driven the vehicle at a speed of about 70 km in the speed of about 50 km in the speed of 41.5 km away from Daejeon-si, Seoul, which is located in the main road of Seocho-gu, Seoul, at a speed of about 411.5 km, along the two-lanes in Seoul. On May 13, 2015, H died on the front-hand part of the GM5 personal taxi (hereinafter “victim”) driven by the Plaintiff C while driving the vehicle at a speed of 14:5 km in the same direction as the front-hand part of the damaged vehicle (hereinafter “the instant accident”).
C. The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with H, the owner of a sea-going vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 5, 25 evidence (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. According to the fact of recognition of the above liability for damages, the defendant is the insurer of a sea-going vehicle, and pursuant to Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act, the deceased and the plaintiffs are liable to compensate for damages caused by the accident in this case.
B. At the time of the instant accident, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that more than one person was on board the damaged vehicle at the time of the instant accident, and according to the overall purport of Gap evidence No. 11, Eul evidence No. 11, and Eul evidence No. 1, it appears that the deceased did not wear the safety level at the time of the instant accident, and it is reasonable to deem that such circumstance contributed to the expansion of the deceased’s damage caused by the instant accident, and thus, it shall be taken into account.