beta
Text
1. The defendant
A. As to KRW 246,658,59 and KRW 125,279,760 among them, from April 27, 2016:
B. Plaintiffs B, and .
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition 1) E is the FObane on June 11, 2002 (hereinafter “Defendant”)
) While driving a vehicle and driving a three-lane in front of the “H High School” in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, one way of the three-lanes in front of the “H High School” is going to the side of the airport via two-lanes, the part of the Plaintiff’s body right side of the vehicle driving in the safety zone was shocked along the above crosswalk (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”) depending on the safety zone where the Plaintiff A was waiting for the signal from the right side of the direction of the Defendant vehicle, despite the fact that the signal for the progress of the vehicle was cut to the left side of the safety zone where the signal for the progress of the vehicle was changed to the red color, by negligence, disregarding the change of the signal for the progress of the vehicle to the stop signal in the middle of the crosswalk.
2) The Plaintiff received hospital treatment for 27 days in total as indicated below, on the ground that the instant traffic accident suffered from the injury, such as blood transfusions, ductal alleys, algos, algonomal algos, the right-side algorasa, the growth frame of the upper right-side algoras, the left-side 1/3 frame of the upper right-hand algorasa, etc.
3) Plaintiff B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the Defendant vehicle. 【The ground for recognition has no dispute, and evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and 18 (if available, including the number; hereinafter the same shall apply).
each entry, the purport of the whole pleading
B. According to the above recognition of liability, the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident as the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, barring any special circumstance, since the Plaintiff was injured by the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle.
C. According to the above recognition of the defendant's claim on the limitation of liability, since the plaintiff A crosses the crosswalk according to the pedestrian signal, it is the plaintiff A or the legal guardian.