beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s payment of KRW 147 million to Plaintiff A, KRW 3 million to Plaintiff B, and each of the said money from August 27, 2017.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition 1) D, around 01:00 on August 26, 2017, driven a numberless dial vehicle and driven the front road of the solar welfare hall, located in 185, G, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, at a speed below the nearest road, from the horizontal distance of the water station to the remote distance of the water station. While the signal to the front intersection is a vehicle red signal in violation of the signal, it was operated by entering the intersection and operating the road within the intersection in violation of the signal while the signal to the front intersection was turned down on the opposite line to the right side of the vehicle, and was used on the road as the front side of the said dial vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the “prior accident of this case”).
(2) Around 01:01 on August 26, 201, H driven an IFD car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and driven the said road at an aesthetic speed from the remote distance of the waterway to the remote distance of the original basin. On the other hand, H served the distribution level of D, which is attributable to the instant prior accident, near the two-lane of the road in front bank, on the Defendant vehicle.
(3) Around August 26, 2017, the instant accident died due to the pulmonary damage, blood transfusion, etc. (hereinafter “D”) around August 26, 2017.
4) The Plaintiff is the mother of the Deceased, and the Plaintiff B is the deceased’s siblings. The Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile liability insurance contract with the Defendant only as collateral against the Defendant’s vehicle I.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including various numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the facts of recognition 1 above, since the deceased died due to the operation of the defendant vehicle, the defendant is an insurer who has concluded a liability insurance contract against the defendant vehicle, within the scope of the compensation limit of the Large Compensation I, the deceased and the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case.