beta
Text
1. As to Plaintiff B, the Defendant: (a) KRW 26,568,469; (b) KRW 14,878,979; and (c) KRW 14,878,979; and each of the said money, from February 21, 2014 to February 2020.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. Facts of recognition 1) E is about 23:57 on February 21, 2014, Fsi (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
) While driving a vehicle and driving along a two-lane road in front of Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, along the two-lanes of the two-lane, the part of the bridge A, which was unauthorized crossing from the left side of the running direction of the Defendant vehicle, was shocked by the front part of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”).
(2) Due to the instant accident, A died on October 17, 2016, when receiving hospitalized treatment due to injury, such as having been suffering from an injury, such as cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral sect, damage to less than flick, and cage cage cages, etc.
(3) On August 25, 2016, the Deceased filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking damages for the instant accident. As such, as the Deceased died on October 17, 2016, the Plaintiffs, the inheritor, taken over the legal proceedings of the Deceased. (4) The Plaintiff B is the deceased’s spouse, the Plaintiff C is the deceased’s children, and the Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who concluded a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant vehicle.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 2, 3, 4, 19, 21 through 25, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings
B. 1) According to the above recognition of liability, as the deceased died due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, the Defendant, who is a mutual aid business entity, is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the instant accident, barring any special circumstances. 2) The Defendant asserts that the Defendant is not liable for damages on the ground that there was no causal relationship between the deceased’s death and the instant accident, as the deceased died as a witness at the heart.
However, according to the result of this court's entrustment of medical records to the H Hospital Head, the defendant asserts that he was the king.