beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.24 2015나34115

손해배상(자)

Text

1. The judgment of the first instance, including the Plaintiff’s claim added or reduced at the trial, shall be modified as follows:

Reasons

1. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case seeking the amount of KRW 6,842,710, totaling KRW 442,710, future treatment expenses, KRW 1,400,00, KRW 5,000, KRW 5,000, and KRW 6,842,710. The court of first instance rendered a judgment citing the plaintiff's early treatment expenses and future treatment expenses and citing part of consolation money. The plaintiff only filed an appeal against the part against the plaintiff's loss among the part against consolation money of the first instance court. The fact that the plaintiff added the claim for damages of KRW 2,012,50, which was lost daily income in the first instance court is apparent in the record. Thus, the scope of the trial in this court is clearly limited to the part against the plaintiff among the part concerning consolation money which was the object of the first instance court's judgment and the part concerning the damage from actual daily income in the first instance court (However, the above part concerning the early treatment expenses and future treatment expenses in the convenience of calculation shall also be indicated below).

A. The facts of recognition (1) B, on November 25, 2012, driven a cab (hereinafter “Defendant taxi”) around 11:00, parked on the road near the bus stop in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, the Suwon-si, and left the Defendant taxi at the front and rear seat and left the Defendant taxi at the end of the next seat, leading the Plaintiff to take approximately 1.5 meters away from the Defendant taxi, leading the Plaintiff to the lower right edge of the Defendant taxi, leading the Plaintiff about approximately 1.5 meters, leading the Plaintiff to take approximately 6 weeks of the back side of the bus stop in Suwon-si, and leading the Plaintiff to an injury, such as the removal, etc. of a copy of the dub inside the right side, which requires treatment for about 6 weeks.

(2) The defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the defendant taxi.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence No. 10-1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the accident of this case as a mutual aid business entity of defendant taxi.

C. Determination of the Defendant’s assertion on limitation of liability is made.