beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was assaulted by the Defendants on August 19, 2015, and the right eye was the real name. The Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 20,00,000,00 for passive damages due to permanent disability under the said real name (see the third pleading protocol of December 7, 2016) (the labor capacity loss rate of KRW 24%, KRW 101,70 per day of daily wage for rural communities, KRW 25, maximum working age of KRW 65, maximum working age of KRW 50 per month, and KRW 20,000,00 for damages.
2. Determination
A. According to Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, the defendant Eul received a summary order of KRW 1,00,000 (as it appears that the above summary order was confirmed as it is), which was diagnosed by D Hospital on August 31, 2015, that the defendant Eul received the diagnosis of "the damage to the stove and visual conditions" from D Hospital "the damage to the s to the stove and visual conditions of the treatment days by cutting down the plaintiff's stoves of 13:00 on August 19, 2015."
B. However, in full view of the following circumstances, the Defendants’ assault cannot be deemed as the Plaintiff’s right-hand eye, taking into account: (a) Gap’s evidence Nos. 3, 8, 10, 16, 18; (b) Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3-2, 1, 2-1, 3-2; and 3-1, 2-2; and (c) the result of the first instance court’s physical examination on the Daegu University Hospital, Daegu of the first instance court, based on the results of the fact inquiry by the National Health Insurance Corporation of the first instance court, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
① In relation to Defendant B’s suspicion of injury that “the Plaintiff caused injury to the Plaintiff during the 180-day period of medical treatment and visual injury,” the fact of physical fighting between Defendant B and the Plaintiff is acknowledged, but the fact was described only as “multi-explosion, anti-explosion, and in the medical records prepared on the day of the case.”