beta
Text
The part against the plaintiff falling under the amount ordered to be paid under the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination
A. According to the above fact of recognition of damages liability, the defendant is liable for damages incurred to the plaintiff due to the tort of this case.
B. 1) The scope of liability for damages: 1,657,840 A) Part of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the fact-finding results and the purport of the argument by the court of first instance to the National Health Insurance Corporation, the Plaintiff may acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff paid the sum of KRW 1,657,840 for the treatment costs as follows.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserted that the sum of KRW 1,657,840 in addition to the sum of KRW 1,657,840 in the G Hospital on January 9, 2017 to March 7, 2017, KRW 1,466,750 in E-won on January 6, 2017 to January 11, 2017, KRW 34,700 in the department of I mental health and medicine, KRW 53,700 in the F.C. on January 9, 2017, the Plaintiff spent KRW 454,331 in addition to the sum of KRW 1,657,840 in the treatment costs due to the instant unlawful act on March 7, 2017, for the following reasons (the remainder of the money that was not determined below is without any evidence to support the remainder of the money). However, the foregoing argument is without merit.
(1) On March 14, 2017, KRW 184,00 of the E Hospital, KRW 184,00 of the same hospital on April 18, 2017, and KRW 11,000 of the J dental clinic on December 18, 2017: In light of each injury’s part (i.e., both sides and the arms’ straws, the face’s impairment on the left side, and the number of uniforms and treatment period of the 3rd Daegu Daegu District, it appears that it is irrelevant to the tort in this case.
② Medical treatment was conducted after the lapse of at least one year and seven months from the date of the instant tort with respect to “the detailed known reaction against severe stress” as to the International Medical Doctor’s 5,900 won on August 14, 2018, and the same hospital’s 7,000 won on September 13, 2018. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge a proximate causal relation with the instant tort.