beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 26,952,253 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from March 13, 2018 to December 4, 2019.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. 1) The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with C with respect to D automobiles owned by C (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).
B) On March 12, 2018, around 05:40, when C was driving a two-lane road near the crosswalk in which a signal, etc. is not installed on March 12, 2018, in the direction of the running of the Defendant’s vehicle, C shocks the Plaintiff, who was standing on the right side of the crosswalk in the direction of the running of the Defendant’s vehicle, while driving the two-lane of the two-lane road near the crosswalk in which the signal, etc. is not installed (hereinafter “instant accident”).
(C) The Plaintiff caused the instant accident, resulting in the injury, such as the closed malone of the inner walls, the closure of the pelvis, the closure of the pelvis, and the saves of the dental infant, and the mental disorder of stress disorder after external wounds.
【In light of the fact that there is no dispute over the ground for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings, the above facts of recognition as to the above facts of the judgment of the court below. The accident of this case can be seen to have occurred while the plaintiff, the driver of the defendant vehicle, had a duty of care to build the crosswalk before the lapse of the crosswalk in front of the crosswalk where the signal, etc. is not installed, and even if the plaintiff, the driver of the vehicle of this case had a duty of care to do so, the plaintiff, the insurer of the vehicle of this case, is liable to compensate for damages caused by the accident of this case.
B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence incurred prior to the limitation of liability and the purport of the entire argument in the statement No. 1 of the evidence, the Plaintiff should have been able to verify whether there was a vehicle travelling around the accident site where the crosswalk was not installed at the time of a new wall that was set up before sunrise, while fulfilling such duty of care.