beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) to Plaintiff A, KRW 595,670,603, KRW 5,000,000 to Plaintiff B, and KRW 3,00,000 to Plaintiff C, and each of the said money.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. Facts of recognition 1) The Defendant is New Busan Taxi Co., Ltd. and D rocketing taxi (hereinafter “Defendant taxi”).
(2) On October 1, 2012, E entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant taxi on October 23:47, 2012, while driving along one lane at a speed of 70 km/h in front of the incineration site in Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City, and driving along one lane at a speed of 21 to 30 km from the Oral City in violation of the signal, and making a left turn at a speed of 21 to 30 km from the Oral City in violation of the signal, and the front part of the G private taxi (SM5) driven by the F, who was in turn at a speed of 71 to 80 km/h in line with the signal, conflict between the front part of the G private taxi (SM5) and the rear part of the Defendant taxi’s back.
(3) The plaintiff A, who was on board the head of the defendant taxi due to the accident in this case, suffered an injury, such as cerebral cerebral hemal hemosis, etc. (applicable to recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
B. According to the facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff A, etc. due to the accident in this case as a mutual aid business operator.
C. The limitation of liability is disputed as to whether the Plaintiff A wears the safety belt at the time of the instant accident, and the survey report on actual condition is “Wearing the safety belt.” However, it is difficult to conclude that the entry is about all Defendant taxi drivers and passengers, and, compared to the absence of any standing room, E, a driver, led to the blaf even though there is no particular body other than the two parts of the Plaintiff, compared to the absence of any other parts, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff A did not wear the safety belt in light of the following: (a) Defendant taxi’s head is not the collision part; (b) Defendant taxi’s head is not the collision part; (c) Defendant taxi’s head is not the shock part; and (d) there is no other sacriff other than the s
(Nos. 1, 2, 3, 16, 17). The Plaintiff’s error was caused by the instant accident and the expansion of damages, thereby limiting the Defendant’s liability to 90%.
Plaintiff .