The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Compensation for damages is aimed at compensating for damages, and if the victim has already received medical care benefits, etc. under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, deducting the amount of such benefits from the amount of compensation for damages can only be limited to cases where the nature of the damages, the period of occurrence, etc. are the same and complementary

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da61703, Apr. 25, 1995; 2010Da77293, Jun. 14, 2012). Medical care benefits received by the Plaintiff from the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service correspond to medical care expenses. However, in order to deduct such medical care benefits from the amount of damages for the period of medical care and the amount of future medical care expenses, the medical care benefits must first be deducted from the amount of the medical care benefits, which the lower court acknowledged, and the specific amount of the medical care expenses

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da95360, 95377, Apr. 10, 2014). 2. First, we examine future treatment costs.

The lower court: (a) deemed that the instant future treatment costs spent on the regular urology and test was first disbursed on July 15, 2016, the following day following the date of the closing of argument in the first instance court; and (b) calculated each amount of damages by deeming that the future treatment costs incurred in both sex surgery and antiscopic treatment and mental health therapy were fully disbursed on the day following the date of closing of argument in the lower court; and (c) it is evident that the relevant treatment costs were the period after the Plaintiff’s medical care benefits were paid on the record

In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge the part of the medical care benefits paid to the Plaintiff as the medical care benefits in advance for the future treatment. Thus, there is no amount equivalent to the medical care benefits that should be deducted from the future treatment expenses among the Plaintiff’s claim in this case

3. Next, the lower court examined the period during which the medical care benefit was paid, and subsequently, the Plaintiff’s medical care benefit was incurred for the same period during which the Plaintiff’s medical care benefit was paid.