손해배상(자)
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff A, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
1. The ground for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if each evidence submitted to the court of first instance was presented to this court.
Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the addition of "2. Additional Judgment", and therefore, it is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. According to the Plaintiff’s active damage claim: (a) the king treatment expenses of KRW 165,90, and the evidence No. 10-1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 10-2, the Plaintiff paid KRW 128,100 for medical expenses after receiving medical treatment for a total of eight times from J Hospital from February 4, 2016 to December 19, 2017 due to the instant accident; and (b) the said Plaintiff paid KRW 37,800 for medical expenses after receiving medical treatment at the same hospital around September 7, 2018.
According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 165,900 for active damages (i.e., KRW 128,100, KRW 37,800) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act until December 11, 2018, stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to claim the above treatment expenses from January 17, 2016, which was the date of the occurrence of the instant accident (i.e., the date of occurrence of the instant accident) and from January 17, 2016 to December 11, 2018, on which the preparatory document from December 11, 2018, which was served on the Defendant.
B. The gist of the grounds for appeal by the plaintiffs as to the remaining grounds for appeal is as follows: ① it is unfair that the judgment of the first instance only recognized only a 4-year temporary disability against the plaintiff A; ② the care expenses for the above plaintiff should be recognized; ③ the amount of consolation money determined by the judgment of the first instance considering the amount of 19 million won in criminal agreement is insufficient and unreasonable.
There is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff A suffered from a disability exceeding four years' temporary disability, and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff A had a disability.