beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is KRW 5,980,110 and also the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases: (a) Nos. 4, 12, and 6, and No. 5, respectively; and (b) thus, the same shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 402 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Supplementary Rule] 3. Judgment
A. The causal link between the injury alleged by the Defendant and the accident of this case 1) Aftermath typhosis, etc.: The nephal typhismianianianianianian in the Central University Hospital proved that the Defendant’s lephal typhism was unrelated to the accident of this case and that the additional damage was not caused due to the accident of this case. Thus, it is difficult to view that there was a causal link with the accident of this case and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. 2) In light of the result of the physical commission to the chief of the Central University Hospital in the first instance court, it can be recognized that the nephal typhian was caused by the accident of this case after considering the existence of the lephical typhism, and the results of the physical examination to the traffic accident engineering appraisal institute in the first instance court and the traffic accident engineering appraisal institute in the first instance court are insufficient to establish causal link with the accident of this case.
3. Dental-gu and dental wave: The collision part at the time of the accident in this case is front of the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle. In light of the direction of shocking on the Defendant’s vehicle, it is not deemed that the Defendant’s fright part was faced with the vehicle, and the Defendant received dental treatment after two months or more from the time of the accident in this case, it is difficult to view that there was causation with the accident in this case. The result of physical diagnosis on the Head of the Central University Hospital Hospital of the first instance court is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence.
(b).