According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on April 23, 1987, Plaintiff 1 suffered from injury of 4,5 chlorates due to traffic accident caused by Nonparty 1’s negligence, and was discharged from the hospital of Nonparty 2 on May 20 of the same year, and received outpatient treatment at the same Council member on July 22 of the same year and May 23 of the same year. On July 23 of the same year, the court below acknowledged that: (a) on the part of Nonparty 1, the Defendant, the employer of the above Nonparty 1, the Defendant, the Defendant, as the employer of the above Nonparty 1, the above Plaintiff’s subrogation for all damages caused by the instant accident, the above Plaintiff gave up all rights arising from the said accident, and did not raise any objection to the above accident; and (b) on the grounds that there was no evidence to believe that the above agreement was merely a need for a long period of time, and that there was no other evidence to prove that there was no other evidence to prove that there was no need to give treatment to Nonparty 1.

However, according to the medical certificate Nos. 6 and 12 and 7's medical certificate Nos. 6 and 7's fact-finding results with respect to non-party 2 of the first instance court, it can be seen that the plaintiff 1 treated the above plaintiff from immediately after the traffic accident occurred to the date of the father's complaint, and the non-party 2 suffered from the above plaintiff 1 did not have any evidence of suspicion of nuclear escape certificate to the above plaintiff 4,5's injury. Further, considering that the plaintiff 7's medical certificate Nos. 7-2 to 7 (Treatment or Certificate of Medical Treatment) and Nos. 8-1 to 34 (each simple statement of account) and the fact-finding results with respect to the above non-party 4's physical examination of the non-party 2 of the first instance court's school affiliated with the first instance court, the above plaintiff can only be viewed as having been presumed to have suffered from the above non-party 4's nuclear capability to receive treatment from the above plaintiff 1, as the result of the medical examination of this case.

Therefore, the court below did not commit an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts as the cooking of evidence in violation of the empirical and logical rules, or by misunderstanding the interpretation of the party's expression of intent as to the omission agreement, and there is a reason to point this out.

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)