beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) against Plaintiff A, KRW 5,00,00, and each of the said amounts, respectively, KRW 730,915,677; and (b) against Plaintiff B and Plaintiff C.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. At around 06:55 on March 24, 2015, G: (a) driven by a Hystal passenger car (hereinafter “Amstal passenger car”) and traveling along a two-lane road near the J located in Ulsan Southern-gu I along the two-lanes from the surface of the sewage treatment terminal to the K bank; (b) due to occupational negligence, he gets the left-hand turn at the center line to park a vehicle on the opposite direction; (c) by the Plaintiff’s driving along the one-lane in the opposite direction, he she received the front part of the LOtoalba (hereinafter “victim”).
(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)
Plaintiff
A owing to the instant accident, he/she suffered injuries, such as blood transfusions from a external trauma, cage cage cages, etc., which have not been open in two ducts due to the instant accident.
C. The Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the above G, and the Plaintiff B and C are children of Plaintiff A.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. According to the facts of recognition of the above liability, the defendant is the insurer of a sea-going vehicle, and is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages caused by the accident in this case.
B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of Gap evidence No. 10, Gap evidence No. 13-6, Eul evidence No. 8 and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the damaged vehicle was a two-wheeled automobile with engine displacement 1137 cc, which is a two-wheeled automobile with engine displacement 1137 cc, and the plaintiff A driven the damaged vehicle without holding the above license, and the plaintiff A was not wearing the safety mother at the time of the accident. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the above negligence of the plaintiff A caused the occurrence and the expansion of damage caused by the accident in this case.