logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.28 2012가단98650
채무부존재확인
Text

1. The Plaintiff’s examination and decision of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Medical Fee Review Council dated March 15, 2012 against the Defendant was followed.

Reasons

1. The following facts are acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties, or in Gap 1 and Eul 1 (the result of the inquiry of the chairperson of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Medical Fee Review Council and the response to the commission of document delivery to the chairperson of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Medical Fee Review Council of this Court), and in consideration of the overall purport of the arguments as a whole, with respect to

A. At around 13:55 on September 27, 2006, Nonparty A (1956 students, women) was involved in a traffic accident where Nonparty A was driven on the right side of the vehicle driven by Nonparty C, which took place on the alley-dong 2, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”), and the said vehicle was subscribed to the Defendant’s automobile insurance at the time.

B. (1) After the instant traffic accident, A was treated as an increase in the thalthum, salthum base, right distribution base, etc. at the non-party D’s external department, and (2) thereafter, as a result of the diagnosis conducted at the Seoul Asan Hospital operated by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff Hospital”) at the main lake and marsh around December 207, 2007, the 4-5-6 conical signboard escape symptoms were verified. The following day, at the Plaintiff hospital, the 5-6 conical conical signboard removal and conical typology surgery was conducted at the Plaintiff hospital. ③ On February 2009, the Plaintiff hospital was hospitalized at the second half-month bar, and the Plaintiff hospital was hospitalized at the Plaintiff hospital’s right-hand bar, and the Plaintiff’s 2ndral salthal typosis was conducted at the Plaintiff hospital’s 5-6 conical typical typosis, and the Plaintiff’s ralthal typosis 1.2.

7. 5. The Defendant hospital received an operation to install a divesium (hereinafter “instant surgery”) with a view to easing pains.

C. A at the time of birth to the Plaintiff Hospital around June 29, 2011.

arrow