beta
Text
1. The defendant, against the plaintiff A, KRW 6,275,266, KRW 3,072,172, and KRW 2,275,266 and each of them.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. (1) The grounds for recognition of liability are as follows: E on February 22, 2018: F Heavy Corresponding vehicles on February 22, 2018 (hereinafter “Wing-type vehicles”).
(2) On February 16, 2018, the deceased died on February 16, 2018 due to climatic blood transfusion, etc. (hereinafter “instant accident”) due to the negligence of neglecting the duty of Jeonju City, which led to the death of two parts of the network I, which took place on the left side from the right side, while driving a two-lane of the shooting distance in front of the H Middle School in Gwangju Seo-gu, Gwangju.
(2) Plaintiff A is an insurance company that entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to the deceased’s wife, Plaintiff B, and C, while the Defendant is an insurance company that entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract.
(2) According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the instant accident as the insurer of the damage vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 3 (including branch numbers for those with branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings
B. On the other hand, according to the above evidence, the deceased's error of crossinging the two-lane road without permission at night, and the above error of the deceased may be recognized to have caused the occurrence of the accident of this case or the expansion of damage, the scope of the defendant's liability is limited. However, the point where the accident of this case is located in the vicinity of the intersection, and ① the point where the accident of this case is not installed as a road adjacent to the intersection, ② the sea-going vehicle prior to the accident of this case was passing through the intersection in accordance with the straight line signals, and was driving at the speed of 25 to 30km/h within the normal speed. ③ The road adjacent to the intersection other than the point where the accident of this case was constructed, and all of the roads adjacent to the intersection of this case were crossinged without permission, and thus crossing the road where the crosswalk was not installed.