beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation on this part of the occurrence of liability for damages is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
(1) The court below held that the defendant's negligence should be taken into account in the occurrence of the accident of this case, but it is not sufficient to recognize the grounds for limiting the defendant's liability only with the evidence submitted by the defendant, and therefore the defendant's above assertion is without merit). 2. The following facts are without any dispute between the parties, or based on the evidence and evidence as mentioned above, Gap's evidence Nos. 3 through 6, Gap's evidence No. 10, Gap's evidence No. 12 through 16, Eul's evidence No. 24, Eul's evidence No. 2
(I) The arguments of the parties are rejected. (A)
1) Costs of active damage 1) : 16,257,58 won (the defendant is the defendant, and the plaintiff was paid 50,071,450 won (including nursing benefits 7,915,840 won) for the instant accident from the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, and the above medical expenses additionally claimed by the plaintiff are medical expenses for which causation with the instant accident cannot be recognized.
In light of the fact that the above medical expenses incurred from the instant accident and were not caused by the Plaintiff’s scopic evidence, and the details of the treatment before the heart were presumed to have been necessary for the Plaintiff to recover the state before the surgery, and that the Plaintiff would have been inevitably using a superior hospital due to the hospital’s circumstance, it is reasonable to deem that the above medical expenses 16,257,58 won for the Plaintiff to be the damage in proximate causal relation with the instant accident. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.
2) Nursing expense: The Plaintiff’s total sum of KRW 1,575,00 from November 13, 2013 to April 25, 2014.