보험금
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff).
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows: (a) the 7th day of the first instance judgment, 7th day of the 7th day of the 7th instance judgment; and (b) the 31th day of the 31st day of the 31st day of the 91st day of the 91st day of the 91st day of the 1st instance judgment; and (c) the 31st day
The following contents shall be added to 7 pages 16 of the judgment of the first instance.
“3.1 Other) If one disability is in a relationship between two or more physical parts or the same physical parts in accordance with the observation method of the disability classification, only the higher payment rate shall apply, respectively, if the other disability is ordinarily derived from one disability.
The following is added to 8 pages 17 of the judgment of the first instance. 750 20 of the following: “When there is a serious obstacle to the chest organs or parthenogenesis function of urology on 12. classification rate (1%) chest organs or parthenogenesis; 2) when there is a serious obstacle to the chest organs or parthenogenesis function; 3) when there is a serious obstacle to the part of the chest organs or parthenogenesis function; 3) when there is a serious obstacle to the part of the part of the first instance judgment;
(a) Classification of disabilities;
(b) Criteria for determining obstacles (3) "When he/she has left a minor disorder in chest organs or parthenogenesis function" means (2) When the total of mausto, urine, bruand, bruand and urines left, 3 When he/she has reduced the light capacity to not more than 50 cc or when artificial surgery is required due to urine brupty, 5 where he/she has installed an artificial port due to an disorder in the function of an anti-brupty (excluding cases where it occurs temporarily
2. Judgment on the main defense against the main defense
A. The Defendants’ main defense to which the main defense of the Defendants’ main defense is the Plaintiff’s obligee obtained the Plaintiff’s order of seizure and collection against the Plaintiff’s insurance claim against the Defendants, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the amount of claim for the seizure and collection order was not qualified
(b) monetary claims against the garnishee.