beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. As to this part of the Defendant’s grounds of appeal concerning the limitation of liability, the first instance court’s determination on limitation of liability is just even if the Defendant’s grounds of appeal do not differ significantly from the allegations in the first instance court.
Therefore, this court's reasoning is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The grounds for this part of the scope of liability for damages are as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the parts which are dismissed or added as follows, and thus, they are cited as they are in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(E) As to the cost of post-treatment and future aid, the Defendant does not dispute this part, and thus, it is recognized that the Defendant spent on the day following the date of the closing of argument in the first instance trial). [The amount of damages calculated in the attached Form of the first instance judgment shall be applied to the calculation table of damages in the attached Form of the first instance judgment.]
"B No. 16" is added to 20 pages 3 of the judgment of the first instance court (based on recognition).
Part 4 of the first instance court's decision, 13 others "427,861,455 won" shall be read as "579,603,779 won", and the following details shall be added to the fourth 14th .
Although the plaintiff asserts to the effect that it is unfair to exclude the period of military service during the period of lost income, if there is no evidence to acknowledge that the victim due to tort completed or was exempted from military service pursuant to Article 2 of the Military Service Act as a male citizen of the Republic of Korea when he did not complete the military service, it is reasonable to exclude the period of service in the future from the period of future operation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da33161, Apr. 11, 200), the plaintiff's above assertion is rejected.