손해배상(자)
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The Intervenor joining the Defendant shall bear the costs of the intervention in the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the defendant added the following judgments as to new arguments in the court of first instance, and thus, it refers to the reasoning of the court of first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The summary of the defendant's assertion is that the plaintiff did not have an injury on the left-hand part of the accident of this case, so the causal relationship between the subsequent disability in the restriction of the official exercise movement on the above parts and the accident of this case cannot be acknowledged, and it is not so.
Even if the plaintiff did not have a certain occupation due to university students at the time of the accident in this case, the plaintiff applied "5" to the occupational coefficient of indoor workers, not "6" to the occupational coefficient of outdoor workers, and asserts that the plaintiff's loss of labor ability due to drilling disorder cannot be recognized to the left-hand side of the plaintiff.
B. Determination 1) First, as to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the causal link between the Plaintiff’s physical disability of physical restriction and the instant accident cannot be acknowledged, the appraiser’s appraisal result should be respected unless there exist significant errors, such as the appraisal method, etc., contrary to the empirical rule or unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da84608, 84615, 84622, 84639, Jan. 12, 2012). Articles 3 through 69, 10 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 3 through 69, 10 (including virtual numbers; 1.g., the Plaintiff’s left surface, etc. at the time of the instant accident, followed the Plaintiff’s physical commission to the Plaintiff’s head of Seoul University Hospital at the time of the instant accident by the front wheels of the Defendant’s vehicle. As a result, the Plaintiff’s physical inspection result was conducted by the Plaintiff’s injury to the Plaintiff’s left side.