2017 Ghana 90781 Compensation (i.e., son)

1. A;

2. B

3. C

[Defendant-Appellant] Han-gu, Cheong-ju, and Park Sang-hwan, Counsel for defendant-appellant

D Corporation

Law Firm Sejong, Attorney Sung-sung et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

May 24, 2019

July 12, 2019

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A 106,40,000 won, each of the 146,00,000,000 won to the plaintiff B, and 15% interest per annum from July 14, 2017 to the date the judgment is rendered, and 5% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

E On July 14, 2017, at around 22:25, 2017, while driving a F-E-Wurged Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”) and driving one lane of the four-lanes of Do from a locking room to the lower bank as it was near the 56th century in Gangdong-gu Seoul, Gangdong-gu, Seoul, the G was killed due to the foregoing accident (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). The Plaintiffs were the heir of the network G. The Defendant is the insurer who concluded the comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the Defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 10 (including all types of numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the existence of liability for damages

With respect to the claim by the plaintiffs for damages caused by the accident of this case, the defendant asserts exemption from liability.

Since Article 63 of the Road Traffic Act provides that pedestrians shall not pass through or cross the motorway, a driver of a motor vehicle who operates the motorway has no duty of care to drive the motor vehicle while preparing for the motor vehicle to make a stop, barring any special circumstance. Therefore, even in cases where a victim who drives the motorway without permission is shocking the motorway and causes an accident, a driver may anticipate such unauthorized crossing from a considerable distance in advance, and even in cases where he/she was in charge of an accident, unless there are special circumstances such as that he/she could avoid a collision with the victim, unless he/she was negligent in driving the motor vehicle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da26240, Jul. 13, 2007).

In light of the following circumstances, which can be recognized by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire arguments as a result of this case’s return to the instant case’s health zone, evidence No. 10, evidence No. 10, evidence No. 2 of the Defendant’s vehicle, video products, and the entire appraisal result, the Defendant’s vehicle was normally operated without any defect in its structure or function, and the Defendant’s vehicle driver could have anticipated a large range of unauthorized Road Crossing from a considerable distance while driving the instant accident site, which is the motorway, or could have avoided any collision. Thus, the instant accident is deemed to have occurred due to the driver’s negligence in operation. Rather, the instant accident is deemed to have occurred due to the former G’s negligence crossing the motorway without permission. The Defendant’s exemption defense is accepted. The Plaintiffs’ assertion is not examined.

① The location of an accident is a motorway with a speed of 80km per hour, and is a point where the direction is driven in the right side of the lower bank from the diving to the lower bank. In order to prevent unauthorized crossing, the said road is at the right side of the road, e.g., flowers and drums, etc., and in order to enter the Olympic Games, which is the site of the accident, at the center of the road (such as evidence No. 10-8, No. 9, etc.) and the center of the road, in order to prevent unauthorized crossing, it is difficult to expect that the driver, under the same circumstances, cross the road which was set up from the e.g., the e., the e., the e., the third line of the road from the e.g., the e., the e., the fourth line of Olympic Games more than the e., the fourth line of Olympic Games.

② At the time of the accident, G crossings the third line road from the delivery near the luminous bridge, and re-enters the 4,3, and 2-lanes into the Olympic Team and passed the 10.3km speed above the speed of 10.3km per hour by the Defendant’s vehicle. Despite the street, etc. at the time of the accident, there was a place where the vehicle was driven at a certain interval. The road at the time of the accident, despite the road at the time of the accident, was at a certain angle, there was a trouble for the driver to secure a sufficient sight. The Defendant’s driver was difficult to find in advance a person coming from the right side of the road at the right side of the walk.

③ An appraiser estimated 24 meters from the point of collision at which the driver of the Defendant vehicle could have been aware of pedestrians. The average speed of the Defendant vehicle in the 24 meters immediately preceding the collision is about 82.9km, the average speed of the 62 meters prior to the collision is about 84.1km, and the driver of the vehicle driving at a speed of 82.9km such as the Defendant vehicle at the speed of 82.9km, the driver of the vehicle driving at the speed of 12.9km prior to the collision is likely to suffer from danger, and the driver of the vehicle driving at the speed of 82.9km such as the Defendant vehicle at the point of 1.4 meters prior to the collision is likely to be 0.7-1.0 seconds, and the driver of the vehicle at the point of 24 meters prior to the collision is likely to be exempt from the road traffic accident at the point of 4.7 meters prior to the collision. Thus, the driver of the vehicle at the point of 4.7 meters prior to the collision is likely to be 4.7m of the vehicle.

④ At the time of the accident, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle runs beyond the speed limit by proceeding about 82.9km (average speed of the section 24 meters immediately preceding the collision) to 84.1 (average speed of the section 62 meters preceding the collision). However, even if the Defendant’s domestic vehicle driven by complying with the speed of 80km at the time of the speed limit, the stop distance is calculated at 47.0-53.7 meters, and it also exceeds the above 24 meters. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle could not immediately avoid the impulse due to stopping or reduction immediately after the Defendant’s driver discovered G if he did not drive the vehicle in the speed limit.

(5) Prior to an accident, the Defendant’s vehicle operator neglected to pay attention to the Defendant’s vehicle without any sudden change in the shape of the main vehicle, the phenomenon of a fire caused by one lane, the rapid change in speed, etc., and the driver’s driver’s stroke, currency, and Handphones, etc. do not seem to have been negligent.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges in the Area

1) Generally, the distance of suspension is calculated in the formula of “the distance of official (the speed X X / 3,6) + the brake distance (the speed of the Si square / 254 x theme coefficient)”. However, in calculating the distance of suspension, the appraiser applied the formula of “the distance of official (the speed X X / 3.6) + the brake distance (the speed of the Si square / 254)”.

2) The official distance (80 x 0.7 1/1/3.6) + the Dong distance [80 square meters ± (254 x 0.8)]