손해배상(자)
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the cases where part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as follows. Thus, this is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2.The "statement of calculation of damages" in Part VII of the first instance judgment shall be replaced by the following table:
From February 8, 2013 to May 7, 2013: (i) 70.5% (i.e., 100% - 29.5%) of the Plaintiff’s hospitalization date from October 11, 2013 to October 25, 2013; (ii) 24 days from November 18, 2013 to December 11, 2013; and (iii) from December 201, 2013 to December 20, 2014 from December 13, 2013 to December 14, 2013; and (iv) 14 days from December 20, 2013 to December 20, 2014; and (v) 14 days from December 16, 2013 to December 20, 2013 to December 14, 2014;
In addition, the Plaintiff received hospitalized treatment at E Hospital for three days from May 14, 2013 to June 16, 2013. As seen below, the above period of hospitalization is not included because treatment during the above period cannot be deemed as treatment having causation with the instant accident, but it does not affect the calculation of the total period of hospitalization as it considers the total period of hospitalization to be three months.
2) From May 8, 2013 to February 7, 2015 (two years after water): Calculation from February 8, 2015, to February 7, 2036, from February 8, 2015: 6.9%: the same shall apply to the entry in the column for the actual income in the annexed sheet for calculating the amount of damages. 5 pages of the judgment of the first instance court.
The part of the flag treatment expenses under this paragraph shall be filled with as follows:
The treatment cost 1) The treatment cost can be claimed only to the extent that there is a proximate causal relation with the tort, so the necessity of the treatment act in question is required in determining the reasonableness.