beta
Text
1. As to Plaintiff A’s KRW 28,636,364, Plaintiff B, C, D, and E, respectively, and each of the said money.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. 1) In fact, F is the Defendant’s vehicle at around 10:53 on August 16, 2013 (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”). F is the Defendant’s vehicle.
) A driver driving his/her vehicle and driving his/her vehicle at approximately 61.7 km each hour along his/her two-lane of the road in front of the Cranc-gu Seoul Central Government of the Republic of Korea with two-lanes of the Cranc-si of the Cranc-si in the direction of the city. Since the restricted speed is 40 km each hour, and a warning sign is installed with respect to hand-on and hand-off, he/she is in the direction of the underground road at which the speed of restriction is 40 km each hour, so he/she is able to observe the restricted speed, keep his/her right and right well-round, and accurately operate the steering and steering gear so that he/she has a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of the accident, despite the absence of such duty, he/she shall be deemed as “the net” (hereinafter referred to as “
(ii) The back-hand side of the fingerle, being towed, received the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle’s right side and had the Deceased go beyond the ground due to its shock, and accordingly, caused the Deceased’s death on August 17, 2013 (hereinafter “instant accident”).
2) Plaintiff A is the deceased’s wife, and Plaintiff B, C, D, and E are the children of the deceased, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.
[Recognizing Facts] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 8 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is the insurer of the defendant vehicle and is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs, who are the deceased and their bereaved families.
C. The Defendant alleged that the deceased was negligent in operating the underground car without taking safety measures, such as wearing a luminous vest at the time of the instant accident or installing a reflector on the handball. However, the Defendant did not recognize that the driver of the handball had the duty to take safety measures as above.