손해배상(의)
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows. The part of "the future treatment costs" in the 6th judgment of the court of first instance is as follows. The calculation table of damages in the attached Form of the judgment of the court of first instance and the calculation table of future treatment costs in the attached Form No. 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the calculation table of damages in the attached Form of the judgment of the court of first instance and the calculation table of future treatment
[The sixth "B. future treatment costs" of the first instance court ruling is as follows]
B. Future treatment costs: 12,568,143 won (12,568,143) when the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the result of the physical examination entrustment to the high-university, and as such, the Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the instant accident, the Plaintiff may recognize that the instant accident requires continuous pharmacologic treatment and requires constant pharmacologic treatment every year; 83,405 won; 83,280 won; 83,280 won; and 73,685 won in blood and urine tests; however, there is no evidence to prove the fact that the Plaintiff actually received the above treatment until the date of the closing of argument at the trial, it shall be calculated as receiving the above treatment from the day following the date of the closing of argument at the trial on the convenience of calculation.
2. In conclusion, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 18,576,171 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from November 5, 2013, which is the date of the instant operation, to April 19, 2018, which is the date of the final judgment that deemed reasonable to dispute the existence of the obligation and the scope of the obligation, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with some different conclusions, so the defendant's appeal is partially accepted.