Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Gyeong-dae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Ro-, Attorneys Lee Dong-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

July 17, 2012

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 206,301,940 won, and 3,000,000 won to the plaintiff 2 as well as 5% per annum from August 22, 2007 to August 14, 2012, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

3. 3/4 of the costs of lawsuit is assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 838,798,209 won, and to the plaintiff 2 5,000,000 won and each of the above money from August 22, 2007 to January 14, 2011 of this case, 5% per annum from the date of delivery of a copy of the application for modification of the purpose of the claim and the cause of the claim, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment (the plaintiff 1 withdraws the claim against KRW 7,038,750, excluding KRW 176,620, out of the costs of direct non-payment under the application for modification of the purpose of the claim and the cause of the claim, as of January 14, 201).

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) Facts of recognition;

On August 22, 2007, Nonparty 6 driven a car (vehicle No. 1 omitted) which is Defendant Non-Insurance Vehicle on August 14:32, 2007, and came to a point of the distribution intersection in the direction of the sports complex according to the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu distribution 2 Olympic Games, and caused Plaintiff 1 to be a car (vehicle No. 2 omitted) while driving the car, and caused the said Plaintiff to suffer an injury, such as fluoral salt, etc. (hereinafter “instant accident”). Plaintiff 2 is an infant of Plaintiff 1.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the instant accident that occurred during the operation of the insured vehicle as an insurer.

2. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Actual income (limited to Plaintiff 1 in all parts other than consolation money; hereinafter the same shall apply);

(1) Facts of recognition and evaluation

(a) Gender: Women;

Date of birth: (Date of birth omitted)

Age: 31 years and 2 months at the time of the instant accident

Name of rental: 52.56 (as at the end of February 29, 2060),

(b) occupation and income;

Since Plaintiff 1 is a person who resides in an urban area, it is reasonable to calculate the daily income based on the income of a person who is engaged in daily work in an urban area. The wage level of daily workers in an urban area is the same as the corresponding column of each item of the [net Income] in the attached Table of Calculation of Damages, the number of monthly working days is 22 days, and the ability to operate is up to 60 years of age.

(2) Loss from suspension

Plaintiff 1 was hospitalized for 29 days in total from August 23, 2007 to January 21, 2009 after the accident in this case. It is reasonable to view that Plaintiff 1 lost 100% of the labor ability for 29 days from the date of the accident in this case (the date of the accident in the calculation convenience is continuous 29 days) from the date of the accident in this case.

(3) The ratio of loss of occupational ability, etc.

(A) Complex Madrode (comprox re-grown s ydrome, CRPS)

1) The general content of the Complex Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Ma (hereinafter “

It can be said that there is a pain disease called anti-flific assistant principal, sympathy, current CRPS I) or rupture causgia, present CRPS II. The main symptoms and signs can be caused by salt dymt, symt, halmpathy, dympathy, sympathy, dympathying, cralgia, present CRPS II, but it is difficult to consider that there is no specific method to determine credibility in the category of 30th diagnosis of patients, i.e., e., diagnosis of patients at least 4th of international diagnostic standards, unless there are special conditions to determine credibility in the category of 30th diagnosis of patients, it is difficult to consider that there is no specific method to determine credibility in the category of 4th diagnosis of patients at the rate of 30th of international clinical examination.

2) The defendant's progress of treatment after the accident of this case

A) After the instant accident, Plaintiff 1 received medical treatment in Seoul FIS, the organizing director, the MIS Hospital, the △△△ University Hospital, etc.

B) A simple radiation photographing, basic blood testing, in-depth and surface heat treatment, climatic climatic therapy, and pharmacologic treatment in the Seoul Flus Hospital. The Mlus Hospital conducted physical therapy and pharmacologic treatment.

C) Since December 12, 2007, the △△△ University Hospital complained of the severe pain by Plaintiff 1, and started a compromise with the anesthesia type I medical department as a result of the CRPS I’s symptoms. Pharmacologic treatment, sex and gymological procedure gymosis, pain generation, light-fymosis, light-fymosis therapy, light-fymosis therapy, light-fymalmosis therapy, popic fymosis, mycopic fymism, curine-fymism, towing, and decentralization treatment. The highest temperature in the physical heat examination conducted on December 12, 2007 at the above hospital was 2.11 %).

D) On July 23, 2009, the medical doctor in charge of △△△ University Hospital published a medical certificate with respect to Plaintiff 1, that the medical certificate corresponds to CRPS I on August 3, 2009, issued a post-disabled disability diagnosis certificate that the medical certificate corresponds to CRPS I on August 3, 2009, and issued a written opinion on June 21, 201 and March 23, 2012 that the medical doctor corresponds to CRPS I on March 23, 2012.

(iii) recognition of disabilities;

In full view of the general contents of the CRPS as above, the Defendant’s treatment progress after the instant accident, the result of the fact-finding on the ○○○ Hospital Head of this Court’s physical entrustment (the part of the ○○○ Hospital Head of this Court) by this Court, the Plaintiff 1 is deemed to have caused the CRPS due to the instant accident, requiring treatment during the future life period, and permanently lost 40% of the labor ability (this Court’s results of physical entrustment to the ○○○ Hospital Head of this Court as of October 7, 2010, applying AMA disability assessment d, applying the AMA disability 4 stage 8.8.8., applying the 2009Da7198, 7204, April 13, 2012, etc.).

(iv) Magressia;

Plaintiff 1 had the power to receive medical treatment due to the leapule and sulphe of the shoulder before the instant accident, which affected Plaintiff 1’s CRPS, and it is reasonable to deem that the degree of contribution to the leapule was 10%. Therefore, the labor ability loss ratio due to Plaintiff 1’s CRPS is 36%(=40% x 0.9).

(B) Mental part

Plaintiff 1’s mental therapy is required for one year from February 24, 2010, which is the date of appraisal due to the reaction depression and stress disorder, and 18% of the ability to work during the treatment period is deemed to be lost.

(C) Limitation of liability (the same shall also apply to the cost of pre-treatment and the cost of future treatment)

Even if there is no cause attributable to the victim, such as the risk of physical talent or disease, if the factors on the part of the victim are associated with harmful acts and the factors on the part of the victim, causing or expanding the damage, the court may apply the legal doctrine of comparative negligence to determine the amount of compensation and take into account the factors on the part of the victim who contributed to the occurrence or expansion of the damage (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da85922, Feb. 11, 2010, etc.). In this case, the following circumstances are as follows: ① CRPS may cause minor external wounds if the patient appeals, namely, (i) the frequency of occurrence is very rare but its risk or result is very rare; and (ii) the accident in this case appears to be a minor accident, and thus, the damage in this case goes against the principle of fairness of the defendant’s compensation for all damages due to the accident in this case.

(b) Expenses for medical treatment;

Plaintiff 1 paid KRW 176,260 as the treatment cost.

(c) Expenses for future treatment;

(1) The CRPS treatment costs

(a)The preservation costs;

For the purpose of preserving the CRPS symptoms of Plaintiff 1, the treatment costs of KRW 11,056,468 per year, such as the detailed statement of treatment costs in the Schedule for the future treatment of the CRPS, are deemed to have been spent on the last day of each year from July 18, 2012, which is the day following the date of the closing of the argument in this case, and shall be deemed to have been spent on the last day of each year from July 17, 2013, and shall be deemed to have been disbursed 11,056,468 won at intervals of one year, including the first disbursement on July 17, 2013 (not to be discarded for a period of less than one year in the last day) (the detailed statement of its calculation is as shown in the Schedule of the CRPS future treatment costs).

(b)the cost of performing scopic scopic scopic operations;

Plaintiff 1’s claim for payment of KRW 16,52,084, every nine years for the expenses of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of

(2) Mental and partial treatment costs

A total of KRW 9,644,727, as stated in the table of treatment costs, is required for Plaintiff 1’s future medical expenses for one year following the date of the closing of argument in this case. It is deemed that it will be disbursed on July 18, 2012, which is the day following the date of the closing of argument in this case.

(d) Nursing expenses;

(1) Hasking expenses;

Plaintiff 1 sought payment of KRW 35,734,39 in total at the opening cost, but there is no evidence to prove that Plaintiff 1 paid the above amount at the opening cost. Therefore, this part of the allegation is rejected.

(2) Future nursing expenses

Plaintiff 1’s hospital visit, long-distance moving time, arching time, home life, etc., is deemed to require opening of 4 hours a day from October 7, 2010 to October 6, 2013. As such, Plaintiff 1’s hospital visit, 32,240,659 won a day from October 7, 2010 to October 6, 2013 (=72,415 won a day x 365 days/12 months x 365 days/12 months x 29.2748 (= 63.6189 - 34.3441)) is recognized as opening costs in the future.

(e) Mutual aid;

After the accident of this case, the defendant paid 27,741,940 won to the plaintiff 1 with respect to the treatment of this case, and 50% of the amount corresponding to the limitation of liability of the plaintiff 1 shall be deducted.

(f) consolation money;

Considering the Plaintiffs’ age, the background and result of the instant accident, the grounds for limitation of liability as seen above, and all other circumstances revealed in the pleadings of the instant case, it is reasonable to separately determine the Plaintiffs’ consolation money of KRW 20,000,000, and KRW 3,000,000, respectively.

G. Sub-committee

Therefore, with respect to the instant accident, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 206,301,940, and the amount of KRW 3,000,000 for each of them from August 22, 2007, which is the date of the instant accident, to August 14, 2012, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute about the existence and scope of the obligation, 5% per annum under the Civil Act from August 14, 2012, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 13; Eul evidence Nos. 5, 7, and 10 (including paper numbers); the result of the court's commission of physical examination to the head of ○○ Hospital; the result of each fact inquiry to the head of ○○ Hospital; the purport of the whole pleadings;

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiffs' claims are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and part of them are accepted, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit.

[Attachment]

Judges Jeong Young-young