beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 21,50,851 as well as 5% per annum from September 9, 2015 to January 12, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. On April 20, 2015, at around 17:16, the Defendant: (a) driven a C Flama 125cc Bada (hereinafter “the instant accident”); and (b) was set off from India to the roadway in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Etoba Center prior to the Etoba Center, and was parked in India due to the failure to properly operate steering devices and brakes; (c) had a collision between the vehicle and the vehicle parked in India, which was parked in India, due to the failure to operate the steering system and brakes; and (d) proceeded with the instant Oba while proceeding the instant Oba, the part of the Plaintiff’s bridge lying with the grandchildren 5 years of age from India to the front part of the Obaba (hereinafter “the instant accident”); and accordingly, (d) caused the Plaintiff to suffer the injury of the frame at the lower part of the right-hand part, which requires five weeks’ treatment.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 15, 16 evidence, Eul 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident of this case as the operator of Oratob in this case.
Although the defendant asserts that the accident occurred due to the defect of the Oral Ba in this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.
C. The defendant's claim on the limitation of liability against the defendant is that the accident site of this case is parked at all times in front of the Otoba Center, or the Otoba has entered the lane with the Otoba, and therefore, the plaintiff walking such place has a duty of care to closely examine the movement of Otoba, but it is difficult to see that the plaintiff walking the delivery has a duty of care to expect and deliver the Obaba, and therefore the defendant's above argument is without merit.
2. It shall be in addition to the matters stated separately below the scope of liability for damages.