logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.26 2018나19391
손해배상(자)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim expanded in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. According to the above fact of recognition of the occurrence of liability for damages, the defendant is liable for damages sustained by the plaintiff due to the accident in this case as an insurer of the defendant's vehicle.

3. Except as otherwise stated below within the scope of the liability for damages, the period for the convenience of calculation shall, in principle, be calculated on a monthly basis, but less than a month and less than a won shall be discarded.

The current price calculation at the time of the accident shall be based on the discount method that deducts interim interest at the rate of 5/12 per month.

A. Personal data 1) Personal data: 2) Income, operation period: urban daily wage, 22th day of each month, 3) later disability, 3% of the labor ability loss rate due to the left-hand slot section, 3% of the labor ability loss rate due to the left-hand slot section, 6, 70% of the labor loss rate in Korea-year market [Ⅱ-3, 6, 70% of the occupational coefficient, and 70% of the labor contribution rate] 2) The plaintiff asserted that the combined tynasium was suffering from the combined tynasium due to the accident in the instant case, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact that the plaintiff could not be objectively discovered from the combined tynasium in accordance with the results of the judgment of the court against the Director of the Hospital at issue.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B. From February 5, 2016 to March 8, 2016, according to the evidence No. 100% A, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact of hospitalization from May 1, 2016 to June 2, 2016. Thus, the Plaintiff is sought for the convenience of calculation.

arrow