손해배상(자)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties or may be acknowledged in full view of the statements in Gap evidence 1 to 8, and the whole purport of the arguments as a result of the request for physical examination to the hospital C by this Court:
D On November 12, 200, at around 22:40, 22:40, D was driven by a vehicle, and was driven in the direction of the network from the direction of the network in the G belt by using one lane of the three-lanes in front of Seoul Mapo-gu, Seoul, the Plaintiff, at the time, who was in violation of the signal, was negligent in a violation of the signal, and caused the Plaintiff to suffer injury, such as a blue shtop, etc., which requires two weeks of treatment.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.
The Defendant, as an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the foregoing vehicles, paid KRW 528,580,00, including medical expenses, to the Plaintiff around the instant accident.
C. Around 1987 when the Plaintiff was enrolled in a high school, there was a record of being treated as a stoke stoke stoke stoke s to the right side. Around May 2010, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as a stoke stoke stoke stoke s to the same side (hereinafter “instant symptoms”).
2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim
A. The plaintiff asserts that the symptoms of this case were caused by the accident of this case, and that the possibility of the above symptoms was not expected at the time of the accident, and that it was erroneous that the symptoms were caused by the abortion at the time of high school after being diagnosed on May 2010, and that it was known that it was caused by the accident of this case only after being diagnosed on May 2014.
As to whether the symptoms of this case were caused by the accident of this case, according to the results of the above physical appraisal, it is difficult to present the symptoms of this case only due to the accident of this case, but there is a possibility that there was a pain of damage in the past. ② Even according to the plaintiff's assertion, there was no special error in the results of the radiation photographing on the right side after the accident of this case. ③