beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A KRW 95,672,501, and KRW 5,000,000 for the plaintiff B, and KRW 2,00,000 for the plaintiff C and D, respectively.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. At around 00:30 on December 4, 2009, Plaintiff A, who driven the E racing from Ulsan to Ulsan Myeon, was faced with an accident attributable to Nonparty F from G vehicle in front of Ulsan-gu Open Village located in Ulsan-gu (hereinafter “first accident”). After the first accident, Plaintiff A transferred the vehicle to HI Hospital after the first accident, and was transferred to the G I Hospital until December 31, 2009, Plaintiff A was hospitalized from the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 1st of the 1st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 1st of the 20th of the 2nd of the 120th of the 20th of the 2nd of the 16th of the 1st of the 20th of the.
Plaintiff
A Even after the second accident, A shall be entitled to the same year from January 22, 2010 to the name of bottled person, such as catitis, chatitis, chatitis, chatitis, space chatitis, etc. at the above I Hospital.
2. 4. A person was hospitalized until the date of hospitalization.
3) Since then, while receiving treatment to curb pains caused by the second and second accidents, Plaintiff A received a diagnosis from CRPS (CRS) in the name of CRPS (CRS (CRS) in Seoul National University Hospital CRS (CRS) on March 9, 201: (a) the results of physical examination with respect to Plaintiff A conducted by this court on the part of Plaintiff A, after receiving a diagnosis from CRPS (CRS) under the name of CRPS (CRS), such as drug treatment, pains (CRS). The results of physical examination with respect to Plaintiff A conducted by this Court are as follows: (b) the Plaintiff A appears to have been sold, leg, shouldered, and air conditioned, and to have been increased, and (c) the Plaintiff’s appeal for it seems to have been made through the view of the Plaintiff’s appeal.