beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 56,402,093 as well as 5% per annum from June 7, 2017 to June 24, 2020 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition 1) C are D Kazon vehicles around 14:40 on June 7, 2017 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
(B) The Plaintiff’s E-wheeled Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s Vehicle”) driving the Plaintiff’s two-lanes of the e-wheeled Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) driving in the middle-gu, Ulsan-gu, U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S.,
2) The Defendant’s vehicle was shocked to the right part of the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).
(2) Due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered injuries, such as diversified trauma, damage to both sides, liver damage, and alley, etc.
3 The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the defendant vehicle.
B. According to the above recognition of liability, the Plaintiff was injured due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident as an insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle.
C. According to the above recognition of liability and the evidence as seen earlier, in light of the fact that the front part of the Defendant vehicle and the front part of the Plaintiff vehicle were shocked at the time of the instant accident, and that the running speed of the Defendant vehicle was 20km a speed of 20km a speed, it appears that the Plaintiff, who was in the front part of the Defendant vehicle, could have discovered the Defendant vehicle in front of the right-hand turn. The Plaintiff changed the vehicle immediately before entering the intersection from two lanes to one lane. The Plaintiff’s vehicle changed the vehicle immediately before entering the intersection to two lanes, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle driver did not know the existence of the Plaintiff vehicle before changing the lane. At the time of the instant accident, the driving speed of the Plaintiff vehicle was 41 to 50km a speed at the time of the instant accident, and the Plaintiff appears not to have entered the intersection by changing the lane.