손해배상(자)
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
Purport of claim and appeal
(b).
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition or dismissal as follows.
2. The defendant asserts that, under the fourth 20 pages of the height part, the second 20 additional contents should be reduced to the extent of 63-73% of the normal person’s life expectancy in light of the degree of the plaintiff’s disability.
What kind of decrease is the result of the aftermath of injury shall be determined individually from the medical point of view according to the specific contents of the aftermath of injury, and the result of the aftermath of physical examination shall belong to the medical judgment, and unless there are special circumstances, the judgment of the appraiser shall be respected.
(2) According to the court of first instance on November 26, 2002 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da72678, Nov. 26, 2002). According to the results of the physical examination commission and fact-finding inquiry with respect to the director of the Seoul Exemplary Hospital, the testimony and evaluation of the Plaintiff’s life expectancy shall be conducted by directly examining the Plaintiff’s physical condition, etc., and refer to the relevant documents, etc., and considering the development of modern medicine after the publication of the literature, etc., it is insufficient to readily conclude that the above evaluation result is unreasonable, and there is no other evidence to prove it.
The defendant's above assertion is not accepted.
The following contents are added under the 6th 9th 9th , [the defendant asserts that it is unreasonable to calculate the Plaintiff’s labor disability loss rate of 27.75% even though the Plaintiff’s urology and disability were not fixed. However, the rate of labor disability of the urology is more than 100% due to the urology of the urology, and the rate of labor disability of the urology of the urology is not affected by the Plaintiff’s labor disability rate of 119,706,080 won at the last 10th urology.].