beta
Text
1. The Defendants respectively,
A. As to Plaintiff A’s KRW 28,712,442 and KRW 8,710,101 among them, from July 27, 2012, and 20.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 13, 2010, at the entrance of the Jeju Jeju Jeju Jeju Island 3988 unit, Defendant D driven a vehicle owned by the Defendant Yanian Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the instant vehicle”), there was an accident that covers the Plaintiff A who walked at the right edge of the road (hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”).
B. In the instant accident, Plaintiff A suffered bodily injury, such as the front part of the left part, the front part of the shoulder, the fluoral part of the fluoral part, and the front part of the fluoral part of the fluoral part of the fluoral part of the fluoral part of the fluoral part of the fluoral part of the fluoral part of the fluoral part of the fluoral part, and the fluoral part of the fluoral part of the fluoral part of the fluoral part of the fluoral part of the fluoral part of the fluor.
C. Plaintiff B’s father, Plaintiff C’s mother, and Defendant Samsung Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. are the insurer who entered into an insurance contract that pays damages due to the operation of the above vehicle.
【Ground for Recognition: Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 (including partial numbers), the images of Gap evidence No. 2-1 through 5, the result of the physical examination of the head of the medical school of the branch of the court, the result of the physical examination of the head of the medical school of the branch of the school of the court, the whole purport of
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant D is a tort, and Defendant C is an operator, and Defendant Samsung Fire Marine Co., Ltd is an insurer, and Defendant Samsung Fire Marine Co., Ltd is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to each of the instant accidents.
B. The Defendants were negligent in not avoiding out of the outer part of the road, which is a safe place, even though they could have anticipated the access of the Plaintiff A’s vehicle, and the Plaintiff’s negligence contributed to 20% of the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of Plaintiff A’s damage therefrom.