logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.03.24 2015나49247
손해배상(자)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court of first instance explains this part of the facts of recognition are the same as the part of the "1. Basic Facts" among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. As to the plaintiff's assertion, the plaintiff suffered injury on the right part of the accident caused by violation of the duty of safe driving in B, and received treatment with constant pain until now. Since the defendant and the above injury were determined and agreed only on the compensation related to the remaining injury except for the above injury, the defendant asserts that the defendant should pay 2,00,000 won for consolation money due to the injury on the right part of the right part.

According to the records of evidence evidence Nos. 3 through 6, the plaintiff could be found to have received a chronic diagnosis, which is the upper right part of the H hospital, as of June 25, 2014. However, according to the results of the plaintiff's interview conducted on Oct. 7, 2015 after visiting the H hospital again on Oct. 25, 2015, after receiving a diagnosis of injury to the right part of the H hospital at the front part of the hospital, the plaintiff's medical examination was conducted on the second right part of the hospital, and after receiving a diagnosis of injury to the right part of the hospital for the first time, the plaintiff's physical examination was conducted on Oct. 25, 2014, with the exception of the injury to the right part of the hospital at the first time after the diagnosis of injury to the right part of the hospital, and the remaining injury to the right part of the hospital at the first time after the diagnosis of injury to the right part of the hospital was conducted by the plaintiff at the second time after the diagnosis of the body part of this case.

arrow