logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.10 2014나31430
손해배상(자)
Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 123,009,686 and KRW 65,937,723 among them.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the party member should explain this part of the liability for damages are the same as the reasons of the judgment of the first instance.

2. Except as otherwise stated below within the scope of liability for damages, each corresponding item of the attached Table of Calculation of Compensation Amount.

The period shall be calculated on a monthly basis, and the amount shall be calculated on a monthly basis, and the amount less than the last month and less than KRW 1 shall be discarded.

The calculation of the current value at the time of the accident of this case shall be based on the method of simple interest deduction at the rate of 5/12 per month.

It is rejected that the parties' arguments have not been separately explained.

Personal information 1) Personal information: The entry in the column for “basic matters” in the attached Form for calculation of damages: 2) the term of lease and the expiration date: The reasons why a member shall provide on this part are as follows: the entry in the third 15-18 et al. of the judgment of the first instance court.

3) Follow-up disability and labor ability loss rate: Maul and human ability shall remain even after the completion of treatment, and such loss shall be 72% permanent after the completion of treatment (applicable to the vocational coefficient 3 of Mabrid disability assessment table) permanently lost labor ability (Article 8-B-4 of occupational coefficient 8 of Mabrid disability assessment table): In short, after the completion of treatment, the number of 11% permanent labor ability due to the separation from the left-hand minister (Article 5-2 of Mabrid Disability Assessment Table) and whether the 27% occupational ability due to the separation from the left-hand body and the 27% occupational ability due to the separation from the Mabrid disability (Article 8-2 of this case’s maximum working age as at the time of operation of Mabrid disability assessment Table) and whether the 27% occupational ability due to the separation from the Mabrid disability and the 5% occupational ability due to the removal from the left-hand body is applied.

arrow