(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.07.03 2014나12498

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.07.03 2014나12498

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid additionally shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 8, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 19:30 on the day-to-day workplace located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju; (b) the Plaintiff’s name-to-day reduction of Dominium and day-to-day Dominium was defective due to work relation; (c) the Plaintiff and the Dominium stated that “I have come her only hack; and (d) the Plaintiff stated that “I have ever changed three times or less; and (e) the Plaintiff’s face was hicked two times, and caused the Plaintiff’s 14 days’ eye, snow, snow, and other impairment of satis that require treatment on the Plaintiff’s eye, etc.

(hereinafter “instant tort”). (b)

The Defendant received a summary order of KRW 700,000 due to the instant tort.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, 5 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of recognition as above, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred by the injury, barring any special circumstance, since the Defendant, as his/her grandchildren worn with an armed rioter on March 8, 2014, sent the Plaintiff’s face twice and damaged the Plaintiff’s eye, etc. for 14 days, such as eye, eye, eye, and other impairment of the personality.

3. Scope of liability for damages

A. On the premise that the Plaintiff had been engaged in the daily reduction of KRW 35,000 per day, the Plaintiff sought lost income for the eight-day period of hospital treatment, but there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff had obtained approximately KRW 35,000 per day of hospital treatment.

In addition, in cases of receiving hospitalized treatment due to an accident, the entire ability to work during the period of hospitalization should be deemed to have been lost. However, in light of the injury unrelated to the accident in question or the fact that the treatment is not medically necessary, hospitalization is conducted under the procedure of treatment, or the part or degree of injury, the progress of treatment, etc.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2013.11.06 2013고정862

-전주지방법원군산지원 2020.06.09 2019가단5432

-대구지방법원 2013.11.06 2013고정1573

-창원지방법원 마산지원 2013.04.17 2013고단4

-의정부지방법원 2013.03.28 2012고정3643