2010 Ghana 38619 Damage (as such)

○ ○ (mar, 1983 Life)

Note ○ (Yon, 1963 Sheet)

December 8, 2011

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 3,500,000 won with 5% interest per annum from January 3, 2009 to December 8, 201, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 9/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

From January 3, 2009, the defendant delivered the complaint of this case to the plaintiff 78,521,903 won to the plaintiff.

shall pay 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

(d).

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) Facts of recognition;

Considering the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and the arguments, around 10:40 on Jan. 3, 2009, the defendant suffered from the injury of the fluorization of the upper left part of the plaintiff's left part by the collision with the plaintiff who was faced with the fluort in front of the defendant while getting off the fluort on the floor, which was in conflict with the plaintiff who was faced with the fluort in front of the defendant while getting off the fluort, and the plaintiff suffered from the injury of the fluorization of the upper part of the upper part of the left part of the accident of this case.

B. Grounds for liability

According to the above facts of recognition, while the plaintiff was getting on the Ssaides, the defendant was found to have been injured by shocking the plaintiff behind the plaintiff, and the accident of this case occurred due to the defendant's negligence of failing to perform his duty of care to save with others when using Ski ground, even though the defendant had a duty of care to save with others to save well and do not conflict with others. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the accident of this case.

C. Limitation on liability

Meanwhile, according to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 14, 15 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and the whole arguments, it is reasonable to consider the defendant's fault in calculating the amount of damages for the defendant's compensation, and to limit the defendant's liability ratio to 80% since it is reasonable to consider the defendant's fault in calculating the amount of damages for the defendant's compensation, and it is reasonable to limit the defendant's liability ratio to 80%.

2. Scope of liability for damages

In addition to the following separate statements, the period for the convenience of calculation shall be calculated on a monthly basis, and the current value shall be calculated at the time of the accident, and the interim interest shall be calculated at the rate of 5/12 per annum.

A. The Plaintiff’s gender, date of birth, age, life expectancy, and maximum working age are as indicated in the column of the foregoing calculation table.

2) Monthly income: 1,724,052 won per month (the plaintiff claims that KRW 1,827,250, the average monthly income for the three-month period from December 2, 2008 to February 2, 2009 as monthly income, but the above amount is recognized as the average income for the one-year period immediately before the accident in this case, as the average income for the one-year period from January 2008, A No. 11) and labor disability and labor ability loss rate)

Mablod’s table - I - 1/5 of permanent disability 2.2% (the Plaintiff, as the result of physical commission to the head of the relevant university and the head of the relevant university affiliated with the relevant university) of the Republic of Korea, claimed that the rate of 14.14% of the combined disability rate of 13% of the permanent disability subject to D application mutatis mutandis, and of 2.2% of the above 14.2% of the combined disability rate as labor disability loss rate, but the calculation of the above rate of 9,102, 94 won (the Plaintiff’s claim amount is KRW 65,403,855 won) is based on the result of physical commission to the head of the relevant university affiliated with the relevant university:

(b) Expenses for medical treatment: 3,685, 340 won (a evidence 8-1 through 8);

C. Future medical expenses: 3,500,000 won (the result of physical examination commissioned by the director of the hospital affiliated with the university of Macheon National University) (the result of physical examination entrusted to the director of the hospital affiliated with the university of Macheon National University) and there is no evidence that the above operation was conducted by the closing date of the argument in this case, and thus, the above amount is deemed to have been spent after the above operation on the day following the closing date of the argument in this case for convenience, and when calculating the above amount at the present price at the time of the accident, 3,065,693

(d) Nursing expenses;

The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff received hospitalization for 14 days due to the accident of this case, and claimed for the payment of 932,708 won at the expense of the opening. However, in light of the result of physical appraisal entrustment to the principal of the Ycheon-gu College of the Republic of Korea University and its affiliated hospital, and the part and degree of the plaintiff's injury, it is not deemed that the opening by the opening of the opening of the family in addition to ordinary nursing is not particularly necessary. Thus, this is not recognized.

(e) Limitation of liability1) The defendant's liability ratio: 12,683, 221 won = [15,85, 02, 994 won + 3,685, 340 won + 3,685, 340 won + 3,065, 693 won)].

(f) Loss deduction 1) Calculation of 15,00,000 won (Evidence 4. 2) that was paid as damages to the Plaintiff from Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., the insurance insurer of Franchiskies, as damages: 2,316,79 won ( = 12,683,221 won - 15,000 won - KRW 15,000): The amount determined as 3,50,000 (the Plaintiff’s claim amount, KRW 10,000,000)

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the damages amounting to 3,50,000 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from January 3, 2009, which is the date of the accident of this case, to December 8, 201, which is the date of this decision, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Gin-Un