beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.10.19 2016가단221026

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 16,622,689 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from May 1, 2015 to October 19, 2016.

Reasons

According to the allegations by the parties and the records of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 22, around November 4, 2014, around 01:30, the plaintiff paid KRW 2,200,00 for medical expenses incurred by the above injury, and KRW 20,00 for medical expenses incurred by the plaintiff incurred from the above injury, which are anticipated to incur from the plaintiff's ability to pay to the plaintiff for about 28 days, due to drinking and growth of the plaintiff's face and chest part, and the injury incurred by the plaintiff for about 14 days from November 4, 2014 to November 17, 2014. According to the evaluation criteria of the labor association's loss of ability to pay the plaintiff KRW 2,20,00 for medical expenses incurred by the above injury, which is anticipated to incur from the plaintiff's loss of ability to pay to the plaintiff by the above injury (the evaluation criteria of the labor association's loss of ability to pay the plaintiff by 20,2005.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 16,622,689 won for damages calculated in accordance with the method, such as the attached table of calculation of damages, as well as 15% interest per annum under the Civil Act from May 1, 2015 to October 19, 2016, which is the date of the judgment of this case, to the extent that the defendant's existence and scope of the obligation is considerably disputed as to the existence and scope of the obligation.

(In light of the background leading up to the occurrence of the instant injury, the degree of injury suffered by the Plaintiff, etc., the Defendant asserts that it is not right to recognize the rate of loss of labor capacity of the Plaintiff in relation to the rate of loss of labor capacity of 5% suffered by the Plaintiff, given that the rate of loss of labor capacity of the Plaintiff is not prescribed in the Mabrid List, it is not right to recognize the rate of loss of labor capacity of 5% in relation to this name.

The loss rate of labor ability is not a simple rate of medical or functional disability.