beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows, and this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding dismissal or addition as follows.
(However, part of the joint plaintiffs B, co-defendant C, and E, which has been separated and confirmed on February 2, 200, which is used or added by the court of first instance, is "On the other hand, the plaintiff B is the husband of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff B is the plaintiff's child of the plaintiff."
The 7th and 17th of the first instance judgment shall be cut down as follows. [A] A shall sit at the back seat of the driver's seat at the time of the accident in this case, and the body of the cab vehicle in this case is faced with the front seat at the time of the accident in this case, and the 14th and 17th of the first instance judgment shall be found to have faced with the face behind the driver's seat, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the causal relationship between the above disease in this case as alleged by A and the accident in this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.] After the 7th of the seventh 19th judgment of the first instance judgment "the result of the physical commission", "the result of the inquiry into the fact-finding return to M Hospital in this court" shall be added.
The following shall be added after the 8th judgment of the first instance.
[Plaintiff asserted that the above traps were caused by antibiotics and dust control prescribed to treat the two kinds of the instant accident. However, there is no evidence showing the cause of the above traps caused by the Plaintiff. In addition, the cause of the above trapsies is the infection of lacop, the laco control clothes, smoking, etc., and there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge that there exists a substantial medical causal relationship between the instant accident and the Plaintiff’s above traps.] In addition, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge that there was a considerable medical causal relationship between the instant accident and the Plaintiff’s above traps.