beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne respectively by each party.
Reasons
1. The reasons for the court’s explanation of this case are as follows, except for the addition of the following judgments as to the matters alleged in the court of first instance by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, thereby citing this case in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is not liable for damages since the primary accident is minor and the defendant's injury is solely caused by the secondary accident.
According to the facts acknowledged by the first instance court, the second accident occurred in the course of moving the damaged vehicle to a safe place immediately after the defendant was faced with the first accident due to the vehicle in the sea, so the second accident has a proximate causal relation with the first accident.
Therefore, the plaintiff should be held liable for the result of the second accident. Therefore, the above argument is rejected.
B. In light of the following circumstances that can be seen by adding the results of the physical examination commission to the head of the Asia University Hospital at the first instance and the results of the fact-finding inquiry of the first instance and the first instance court, namely, ① there exists an obstacle to the Defendant, such as the sloping change and falling short of the sloping nature of the sloping signboard, but it is difficult to see that such obstacle was caused by credit, which is determined to constitute a sloping evidence by the Defendant. ② The sloping and the sloping and the sloping sloping in the Defendant caused by the first accident and the second accident, are generally improved only for a few months, ③ the Defendant’s physical examination was conducted for 10 days after the accident, and even for 3 years and eight months after the accident, while the Defendant’s physical examination was conducted for 10 days after the accident, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s symptoms constituted a market for one year.
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and thus, the Plaintiff.