beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be additionally paid under paragraph 2 shall be revoked.
2.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation on this part of the claim for damages is the same as the reasons stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Limitation on liability for damages;
A. In the judgment of the first instance court of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant’s liability was limited to 60% in consideration of the fact that the instant accident appears to have occurred while the Plaintiff appears to have occurred while crossing the road without permission at the start of the night prior to sunrise.
However, since the time of the instant accident occurred, since the so-called "civil gambling (referring to the view of brightnessing to the extent that daily outdoor life is possible as it is possible to distinguish things from the face of things or people, although it has not yet been left, and it refers to the case where the center of the astronomical pattern is from the west line to the 6th degree below it)", it was not easy to brightness. The Plaintiff was not subject to the instant accident while crossing the road without permission, but rather caused an accident to catch a taxi after governance. Therefore, the above limitation of liability is unreasonable.
B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 9, Eul evidence No. 2-1, and Eul evidence No. 2-3, since the time of the accident of this case is 07:08, the time of the accident of this case is 07:00, and the time of the accident of this case is 07:00, the time of the accident of this case is deemed to have been in the state where the time of the accident of this case was still in the state where the time of the
Considering the fact that the instant accident appears to have been suffered (the entries in the Evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1 and 2-2, alone, are insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff was trying to get a taxi after completing the crossing without permission, and there is no other evidence to recognize it), it is reasonable to limit the Defendant’s responsibility to 60%.
3. The period of time for calculating the scope of liability for damages shall be monthly.