beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 44,272,760 as well as 5% per annum from August 18, 2015 to November 11, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. (1) On May 15, 2014, around 13:34, 2014, B driven a C concrete mixed truck (hereinafter “Plaintiff-Appellant”) and driven the Defendant, who dried the crosswalk at the crosswalk 4’s seat in Daejeon-gu Daejeon, with the two-lanes of the four-lane road in Parisbro, while sexualnam 4 driven the Defendant, who dried the crosswalk, even though the crosswalk signal was red.
(2) The Plaintiff paid KRW 55,340,950 as insurance money to the Defendant by August 17, 2015.
B. (1) The signal system at the place where the instant accident occurred is the same as the attached Form. The driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in a direct progress as in the direction of 3:00 p.m., and the Defendant was under the direction of 4:0 p.m.
(2) At the port of three times the vehicle may run between 36 seconds and the yellow signal shall be displayed at every time of the alteration of the signal three seconds, and the signal of the crosswalk during the fourth hour shall be 37 seconds.
(c) At the time of the accident identified by CCTV images as at the time of the accident, the circumstances at the time of the accident shall be as follows:
13:34:14-15- – With the start of the vehicle from which this vehicle starts, 13:34:26-27-27- - The four-lanes of the defendant and the letter, and the crosswalks shall begin to make a personal preparation, and 13:34:41-42- The defendant and the crosswalks shall start to open the crosswalks 13:34:44-45- - The female waiting for the signal at the crosswalks 13:34:54-55- The vehicle is presumed to be shocking the defendant. The fact that there is no dispute on the ground of recognition, Gap's 1 through 3, 17, Eul's 1 and 55- The purport of the whole pleadings, the purport of arguments, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion of immunity
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred is a pedestrian signal while the Plaintiff’s driver was operated according to the normal driving signal.