beta
Text
1. The Defendant: KRW 34,786,112, and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from December 26, 201 to September 9, 2015.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. 1) On November 4, 201, 22:35 Gwangju Northern-gu D, the Plaintiff, who crosses the intersection of the private distance in front of the E-cafeteria located in D, to the left-hand, from the shooting distance of the E-cafeteria-gu, Gwangju Northern-gu to the left-hand, was receiving the Plaintiff, who crosses the road to the right-hand from the left-hand side of the running direction, and sustained an injury, such as the chief executive officer and the chief executive officer at the right-hand left-hand, etc. (hereinafter “instant accident”).
(2) The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with the above taxi.
[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, 6, 13 through 16, 18 through 21, Eul evidence 1 and 6 (including each number)
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the instant accident.
2. The limitation of liability may recognize the Plaintiff’s right of crossing without permission at night, but on the other hand, the accident location of this case is where traffic has been concentrated and where the traffic has reached the intersection where the traffic has not been controlled, it is necessary to temporarily stop, temporarily stop, reduce the speed, and make a left turn to the left and do not reduce the speed while entering the intersection. Since B, a sea driver, could sufficiently detect the Plaintiff before the beginning of the accident in this case, he could have sufficiently discovered the steering gear and brakes, if he operated the steering gear and brakes properly, he could avoid the Plaintiff. The crosswalk was installed at the accident location of this case, and the Plaintiff was installed at a crosswalk of about 2 to 3 meters from the crosswalk, and there was a guiding line, and the Plaintiff was installed at the left part of the guiding line, and thus, the Plaintiff had to go to the right part of the guiding line and thereby leading the Defendant to the accident in this case [this case, even if there is a guiding line to the right part of the guiding line, it is necessary to proceed with the inspection of this case.