logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.28 2016나5398
손해배상(자)
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. The court's explanation on this part of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the scope of liability for damages are as follows: (a) by adding the following items to Chapter 3, Chapter 16, and Chapter 4, Chapter 1, and the following items to Chapter 4, Chapter 3 to Chapter 4, the court’s “this court” in Chapter 13, and the corresponding part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the replacement of the attached amount calculation table as follows: (b) it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) it is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Additional Part 3 / 16 / 16 / 16 / 3 / 16 / 16 / 16 / 5 / 10 of the working ability loss rate under the Enforcement Decree of the State Compensation Act, rather than the Mabberg Sck's Sck's Sck's Sck's Sck's Sck's point of view that the plaintiff should apply the labor ability loss rate. However, the method of calculating the labor ability loss rate under the Enforcement Decree of the State Compensation Act provides that the grade should be limited to a specific field, such as the State Compensation Act, without considering the influence according to the occupational contents of occupation, and it is too unreasonable that the degree of disability is abstract and the gap between grades is too large. Thus, the labor ability loss rate should not be applied on the basis of this. Accordingly, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit. However, when calculating the industrial accident compensation insurance expenses in the future, the defendant should claim medical fee insurance in accordance with the Medical Fees Act.

arrow