손해배상
1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim changed at the trial court, shall be modified as follows:
The defendant.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where part of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows. Thus, this is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. The "statement of calculation of damages" in Part VI of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be replaced by the following table:
Each of the 4th, 14th and 15th and 15th and 4th and 15th of the judgment of the first instance. "The results of the commission of physical examination and fact inquiry to the chief of the Gangseo-hee Hospital of this court" are as follows.
From 4th to 13th of the judgment of the first instance court, the following shall be followed:
"1) Reasons for taking into account": The instant accident is the shocking of the Plaintiff who was crossing along the pedestrian signal at the crosswalk and there is no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff. At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff appears to have had a significant impact on his studies and career due to the instant accident as a middle student, and the amount recognized as follows: 24,00,000 won: the first instance court ruling No. 4, 16, 5, 16, 1, and 5, of the instant case, including the injury caused by the instant accident, the degree and degree of the injury caused by the instant accident, and the injury and the injury caused by the aftermath, etc.
D. If so, the Defendant’s damages amounting to KRW 48,975,00 as damages (=24,975,000 consolation money of KRW 24,000) and KRW 31,698,314 recognized by the first instance court among the damages inflicted on the Plaintiff (as for KRW 24,69,00,000 as damages for property) and the 31,698,314 as of November 25, 2010, the date the instant accident occurred, which is the date the Defendant’s duty to perform was determined by the Civil Act from November 25, 2010 until June 21, 2016, which is the date the first instance court rendered a significant decision, to resist the existence or scope of the Defendant’s duty to perform (=48,975,000 for KRW 31,698,314). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22506, Nov. 25, 2010>