beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
[Claim]
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows 2.
As described in the paragraph, from the 17th to the 21st one on the same side shall be as follows 2-B.
As stated in paragraph (1), the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. The modified part;
A. The confirmation of the fact of accident (Evidence A No. 1) states that the above bus between the time when the plaintiff was scheduled to board in front of the defendant bus is the accident that the plaintiff got in front of the plaintiff and was injured. In light of the fact that the summary order (Evidence A 5) states that the plaintiff was stated to the effect that the plaintiff was scheduled to board in front of the plaintiff and the defendant bus was started to board and alight from the left side and the accident of this case occurred, the plaintiff seems to have attempted to board and alight from the time when the front door of the above bus is closed, and it is reasonable to limit the defendant's liability for damages to 85%, considering the circumstances of the above accident.
B. 3) The ratio of the latter disability and the ratio of the loss of labor ability: the abstract disability (5 cm to the upper part of the upper part of the arche x 7 cm) 2% of the ratio of the loss of labor ability (40% of the ratio of the loss of labor ability under attached Table 214 Clause 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Compensation Act, and the method of calculating the ratio of the loss of labor ability under the Enforcement Decree of the State Compensation Act is defined without separating the grade for the limited type of compensation handling limited to specific areas, such as the State Compensation Act. It is too unreasonable that the degree of disability is too abstract and that the difference between the grades is too large, and the attached Table 214 Clause 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Compensation Act.