(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.08.31 2016나1274 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.08.31 2016나1274

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments as to evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 3, 12, 14, and 17 of the evidence Nos. 1-1, and the whole purport of the pleadings, the Defendant, before the Ulsan District Court in the Ulsan District Court on Nov. 7, 2013, committed an injury to the Plaintiff such as 2-2 weeks of the Plaintiff’s head and chest, etc. while putting his/her hand room on his/her hand while putting the Plaintiff at his/her hand and bringing the Plaintiff at his/her head and chest, etc., which requires two weeks of medical treatment. The Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the above tort. According to the above acknowledged facts, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages.

2. Scope of liability for damages

A. Medical treatment costs: (a) comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence No. 1-2, evidence No. 1-2, evidence No. 4, evidence No. 1000, evidence No. 10-2, evidence No. 8-3, and evidence No. 10-3, and the overall purport of argument No. 10-3, the Plaintiff spent 401,00 won for the medical treatment costs incurred from the above injury from November 8, 2013 to December 23, 2013, although it is recognized that the Plaintiff spent 401,00 won for the medical treatment costs incurred from the above injury, in light of the circumstances where the treatment period of the above injury suffered by the Plaintiff is about two weeks, evidence No. 2,5,6,7, 9, 11, evidence No. 8-1, 2, and evidence No. 10-1, and evidence No. 8-3, and evidence No. 10-3, and evidence No. 10 are found otherwise.

B. According to the record of No. 13 of the recording cost Gap, the fact that the plaintiff paid KRW 700,000 at the recording cost is recognized, but the above recording cost cannot be viewed as damage in proximate causal relation with the above tort of the defendant.

C. The written evidence Nos. 15 and 16 can only be seen as having lost income due to the Defendant’s tort.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2016.10.11 2016나4969

-의정부지방법원 2016.05.13 2015나5980

-의정부지방법원 2016.10.06 2016가단100119

-부산지방법원 2018.03.23 2017나58908

-부산지방법원동부지원 2015.11.04 2015가단2548