beta
Text
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the Plaintiff’s claim for KRW 100,000.
Reasons
1. On September 22, 2018, C of the Plaintiff’s assertion that he/she claimed that he/she was driving in the E-owned station located in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul, brought an injury to the Plaintiff who was driving on the top of the damaged vehicle and was making a stop and being parked in a G car (hereinafter “victim”) after being driven by the E-owned station in Songpa-gu, Seoul, and brought an injury requiring two weeks of treatment.
Therefore, the defendant, who is the insurer of the household vehicle, is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total of KRW 1720,000,000,000,000,000,000 for medical treatment expenses, KRW 1.5 million for mental damage, and damages for delay.
2. Determination:
A. Of the instant lawsuit, the amount of litigation costs spent as a legal cost of KRW 100,000 in the part of the lawsuit can be reimbursed after the final and conclusive judgment becomes final and conclusive through the procedures for determination of the amount of litigation costs under the provisions of the Costs of Civil Procedure Act. As such, there is no benefit to seek compensation as a separate positive damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da96997, Mar. 24, 201). Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim of KRW 100,
B. The fact that C is liable to pay medical expenses of KRW 1.20,000 and consolation money of KRW 1.5 million on September 10, 2018 that, around 22:20, the E-gas station located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant accident”), left the harming vehicle and stopped and parked in the front part of the damaged vehicle, and the fact that the Plaintiff was boarding the front part of the damaged vehicle at the time is no dispute between the parties.
However, according to the images of the evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, and 3 of Eul evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, and 3, the accident of this case can be acknowledged as a fact that the plaintiff, who was on the top of the accident of this case, was living in the front part of the damaged vehicle, is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff, who was on the top of the damaged vehicle, suffered bodily and mental damage requiring two weeks of treatment.