beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the money ordered to be paid under the following subparagraphs shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. The basic facts;
2. The reasons for this part of the claim for damages are as stated in Articles 1 and 20 of the Civil Procedure Act, except that the court’s second 11th 11th son of the judgment of the court of first instance considers “Plaintiff” as “Plaintiff”. Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. In principle, a period of time for calculating the scope of liability for damages shall be calculated on a monthly basis, but less than the last month and less than KRW 10 shall be discarded.
The calculation of the current value at the time of the accident shall be based on the reduction rate of 5/12 percent per month to deduct the interim interest.
In addition, it is rejected that the parties' arguments are not stated separately.
basic matters 1) Date of birth 2) The age at the time when an accident occurred: F student 2) Gender: 27 years old and 11 months old and 4 years old and 51.39 years old and 51.39 years old (the date on which the life expectancy ends on June 4, 2064)
B. Whether to recognize lost income or not refers to the case where the plaintiff asserts that he himself falls under the category of physical disability and the rate of loss of labor ability" of class 2 of class 14 of the attached Table 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Compensation Act (hereinafter "the rate table of loss of labor ability") (the "person who uses dental technicians to more than three infants") and sought a lost income by calculating the rate of loss of labor ability as 5%. However, "a person who uses dental technicians to a baby" under class 2 of class 14 of the State Compensation Act in the table of loss of labor ability of class 2 of class 14 of the State Compensation Act means only where he actually lost or clearly lost, or where he performs dental technicians to a baby whose loss is clearly lost or deficit, it does not include the case where he performs dental technicians to a normal neighboring baby (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Da51572, Oct. 23, 201; 2000Da427, Nov. 24, 2003).