beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following order of payment shall be revoked, and
Reasons
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the attached Form Nos. 3, 16, and 20 of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter "attached Form No. 1") shall be respectively dismissed; (b) the part concerning "the lawsuit theory" in Articles 6 through 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows; and (c) the part concerning "the lawsuit theory" in Articles 19 through 21 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be written as follows; and (d) the attached Form No. 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be the same as the written judgment of the court of first instance, except where the "attached Form No. 1 Calculation sheet" of the judgment of the
2. Parts to be dried;
B. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is obligated to pay for the future treatment cost of 3 million won per year for the treatment of the plaintiff for about 3 years from the date of the award.
The amount of expected damages, such as future medical expenses, may be compensated only for damages actually incurred if the expected period has already expired at the time of the closure of the arguments in the fact-finding court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da68577, May 12, 2000). According to the result of the physical appraisal commission for the head of the relevant hospital at the time of the first instance court's Epician University, it is necessary for the Plaintiff to take drugs and physical therapy for three years from the water surface for preservation, and it is recognized that the medical expenses of KRW 3 million have been anticipated, but the expected period has already expired at the time of the closure of the arguments in the court, so the damages for the past part may be compensated only for damages actually incurred.
Therefore, there is no evidence that the plaintiff actually spent the medical expenses. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
F. According to the theory of the lawsuit, the Defendant’s assertion that it is reasonable for the Plaintiff to dispute the existence and scope of the obligation from May 18, 2012, which was the date of the instant accident, on the amount of KRW 40,106,810 due to the instant accident.