손해배상(기)
All appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne individually by each person.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
The reasons why our court should explain about this case are as follows: (a) to exclude the addition of the following provisions of Paragraph (2), it is identical to the part concerning the reasons for the judgment of the first instance; and (b) to accept it in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(1) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s income from the Plaintiff’s additional part of the Plaintiff’s income from the Plaintiff’s income cannot be viewed as a type of the first-aid service, regardless of whether the Plaintiff’s negligence on duty caused by the first-aid service’s own use of the first-aid service, and as long as the Plaintiff’s loss directly caused by the first-aid service’s image, it is inevitable for the Defendant to operate the first-aid service in order to transport the patient to the second-aid service. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff incurred pictures on the ground that the first-aid service’s own use of the first-aid service’s own use of the first-aid service’s own use of the equipment would be deemed to have been used in accordance with the first-aid service’s usage. However, the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s income from the Plaintiff’s income from the second-aid service did not accept the Defendant’s claim that the Plaintiff continued to be liable under the Automobile Accident Compensation Act, regardless of whether the Plaintiff’s income from the second-aid service could be included in the first-aid income.
The above assertion by the plaintiffs is without merit.
The Plaintiffs asserts that the first instance court should reflect the “comprehovah damage” suffered by the Plaintiff A, in addition to the “comprehionary fluence” and the “comprehion fluent disability,” taking into account the rate of loss of labor ability.