(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.10.11 2015나43889

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.10.11 2015나43889

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, KRW 2,541,610 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from July 29, 2015 to October 11, 2016.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On February 15, 2015, the Defendant asserted the Plaintiff spent KRW 1,541,610 as medical expenses from February 15, 2015 to February 28, 2015, and KRW 648,360 as medical expenses from June 5, 2015 to August 11, 2015. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 6,000,000 as well as damages for delay.

B. Determination 1) Since there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant incurred an injury to the Plaintiff on February 15, 2015, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the injury. 2) According to the purport of each of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff can be found to have spent KRW 1,541,610 due to the injury, so the Defendant shall compensate the Plaintiff for the said damages. Since the Plaintiff asserted that the medical expenses incurred after June 5, 2015 should also be included in the scope of compensation, according to each of the evidence Nos. 5 and 7, according to the reasoning of the evidence No. 1 and No. 5 and No. 7, the Plaintiff can be found to have spent medical expenses from the right hand hand on June 5, 2015, to the 3016th 814, 2015.

However, in light of the following circumstances that can be seen in addition to the purport of the oral argument as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s medical expenses are disbursed when taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff was diagnosed as a eye and string around the eye, cT diagnosis on the day when the Plaintiff was injured; (b) the Plaintiff was diagnosed as a eye and cT, and was given treatment due to the cryp and tension of the cryp and the cryp; (c) there was no diagnosis and treatment on the right hand and the cryp; and (d) there exists an interval between the time when the Plaintiff was treated on the right hand and the cryp; and (d) the time when

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2018.02.23 2016가단115101

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2018.02.09 2017고정730

-대구지방법원 2019.04.24 2018나303774

-대전지방법원 공주지원 2018.12.06 2016가단737

-수원지방법원 2020.12.24 2020나60673