1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the occurrence of liability for damages and the limitation is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Scope of liability for damages

A. 1) Active damage 1) The reasons why this court should explain are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, this court cites it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2) The reasons why this court states in this part are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following additional parts. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

[Supplementary part] The plaintiff asserts that the injury suffered by the defendant's assault has been continuously treated until now, and that the damage that has been expanded after the judgment of the court of first instance requires happiness, such as continuously salting in the future.

살피건대, 갑 제11호증의 1, 2의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면 제1심판결 이후인 2018. 12. 6. 의사 C이 원고가 골절부위는 유합이 되었으나 외상후 관절염으로 인해 통증과 뻣뻣함이 잔존한 상태로 소염제 등의 복용과 관절 고정술을 고려할 수 있다는 취지의 소견서 및 향후 추정 치료비로 2,740,680원이 예상된다는 내용의 향후 치료비 추정서를 작성한 사실이 인정되나, 위 소견서 및 치료비 추정서는 그 기재 내용과 같은 치료방법을 고려할 수 있다는 의견일 뿐 위 소견서 및 치료비 추정서만으로는 원고가 주장하는 내용과 같은 확대손해 및 치료비가 발생할 것이라는 사실을 인정하기 어렵고 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로 원고의 이 부분 주장은 받아들이지 않는다.

B. The reason why the court stated this part of the passive damage is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.