beta
Text
1. Defendant B and E jointly share KRW 257,292,806 with respect to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from March 7, 2015 to October 25, 2019.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. On March 7, 2015, when Defendant B drives Otoba in the vicinity of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on or around 21:20, Defendant B: (a) the fact that: (b) there was sufficient space to avoid the bicycle riding of Nonparty A, who entered the intersection, and was thought to have been a space to avoid this; (c) the Plaintiff was suffering from injury, such as stoves of the bicycle front wheeler due to the instant accident; (d) the Plaintiff was at 17 years old at 17 years old at the time of the instant accident; (c) the Defendant C and D were their parents; and (d) the fact that Defendant B was a delivery of the Defendant E-A’s house operated by Defendant B, and the fact that the said Otoba was in operation is not disputed between the parties concerned; or (d) the purport of evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 37, 197, 19, and 39, the entire pleadings and arguments of each Party A’s evidence No.
B. The existence of liability and its basis 1) Defendant B’s above facts acknowledged that the accident of this case occurred as Defendant B violated the duty to safely drive by driving the bicycle that Defendant B entered, by driving the course, etc. In light of the above age, academic level, etc., it is reasonable to deem that Defendant B had an intelligence to change liability for his own act in light of the above age, educational level, etc. Therefore, Defendant B is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the accident of this case. Therefore, even in the case where Defendant C and D minors are liable for tort on their own due to their responsibility, if there is proximate causal relation with the violation of duty by the supervisor of the relevant minor, the supervisor is liable as a general tortfeasor.
(2) In such a case, the existence of the breach of supervisory duty and the proximate causal relationship with the occurrence of the loss must be proved by the claimant.
Supreme Court Decision 2002Da6454 delivered on February 11, 2003