beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) against the Plaintiff A, KRW 125,323,494, and KRW 2,000,000 to the Plaintiff B, and KRW 1,00,000 to the Plaintiff C and D, respectively.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 22, 2012, the driver of the Esch Rexton car who entered into the comprehensive insurance contract with the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “A”), was driving a sea-going vehicle on May 22, 2012, and driving a road in the F apartment complex in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, at the entrance of the apartment, toward 103 parking lots from the entrance of the apartment, and was shocked by the Plaintiff A, coming from the front door near the above apartment.
(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case").
In the instant accident, Plaintiff A suffered bodily injury, such as “A,” both sides, etc., of an outer propoppy.
C. Plaintiff B’s wife, Plaintiff C, and D are children.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 6, purport of whole pleadings
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. According to the above facts finding the basis of liability, the accident of this case is deemed to have occurred due to the operation of a sea-going vehicle, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is liable for compensating the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the accident of this case as an insurer of a sea-going vehicle.
B. The Defendant asserts to the effect that at the time of the instant accident, Plaintiff A was under the influence of alcohol and was shocked on the harming vehicle, and that the Defendant should limit the Defendant’s liability in light of the time when the accident occurred, road structure, etc.
In full view of the purport of the argument in the statement No. 4-1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 4-2 of the accident of this case, the fact that the plaintiff A was under the influence of a little alcohol at the time of the accident of this case may be recognized, but as a result, the fact that the plaintiff A was unable to walk normally, such as rapid moving of the plaintiff A to the running route of the vehicle of this case, is insufficient to recognize it only with the entries or images of No. 3-1 to No. 12, and there is no other evidence. The location of the accident of this case is a place where the safety of pedestrians should take precedence over the road that is not separated from the roadway in the apartment complex.