beta
Text
The defendant's KRW 14,00,000 for the plaintiff and 5% per annum from April 20, 2016 to September 22, 2017.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
A driven a taxi on December 7, 2013, 00:55 si (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff-Vehicle”) and driven a three-lane (5-lane) on the 00:55 si (hereinafter referred to as “on the front day of the front day”) of the front day of the front day of the front day of the front day of the front day of the front day of the front day of the front day of the front day of the front day, and the victim B, who without permission, crosses the right side of the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle
(hereinafter “First Accidents”). The victim died in a vehicle driven by C (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) following the first shock, which was used on the road (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”). The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business operator who entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid contract with respect to the Plaintiff vehicle, and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle.
The plaintiff asserts that there is no causation between the first accident and the death of the victim.
However, in light of the shock level of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the victim’s shock or the speed of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the accident, the impact appears to have occurred to the extent that the victim was unable to drive his mind for a period of time when the Plaintiff’s vehicle was used on the road due to the primary accident, and the victim was not able to get off from the place of the primary accident until the secondary accident occurred (10 to 11 second time).
(No. 9-15, 16, and 10 No. 10). However, it can be sufficiently predicted that if temporarily locked on the road, the death can be done by placing it on the vehicle passing through the road. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that there is a proximate causal relation between the first accident and the death of the victim.
The causal relationship between the first accident and the death of the victim cannot be denied merely because the injury directly caused the death was caused by the second accident.
With respect to the ratio of the burden of the plaintiff and the defendant, a person is generally employed on the road.