beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the following additional determination, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The defendant's additional decision is in dispute as to the basis for calculating the plaintiffs' damages, and this is examined as follows.
A. Of property damage, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the part of the spathn treatment cost portion of the Plaintiff’s first medical treatment after the instant assault is “the spathn, closure, etc. of the first spathn.” However, while the medical records of the J Hospital hospitalized by the said Plaintiff after being treated on the following day are “the spathn, closure, etc. (6, 8, 12 on the left side) including the three spathn wn wn wn wn wn wn wn, etc.” and thus, there is a difference in the part of the wnthn wn wn wn wn wn.
Since medical expenses can only be claimed within the scope of proximate causal relation with tort, the reasonableness of the amount of remuneration for the medical treatment should be reviewed with the necessity, period, and the degree of injury, content of treatment, recovery, and universal level of medical treatment in the society (in particular, medical insurance fees), in order to determine the range reasonably by excluding the possibility of emergency high-amount medical expenses or low-amount medical expenses, in consideration of various circumstances, such as the degree of injury, content of treatment, recovery, and the level of general medical treatment in the society.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1518, May 24, 198). According to the evidence No. 10, the Tongwon Certificate issued by an I Hospital on August 24, 2015, the hospital name of the above Plaintiff’s disease was cut off and closed.
2. The “multi-marcing typology” is recognized as having been written as “one day from March 13, 2013 to March 14, 2013.”
However, evidence No. 3-1, 2, and evidence No. 5-4, 5, 6, and 9-9 respectively.