1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance that cited this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following matters, thereby citing this in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance is " and the upper body" in Part 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and part 6 is "(3) opening expenses" in Part 1, and part 6 is "(4) opening expenses."

(b) add to the third and fifth decision of the first instance court the following two.

2. Additional determination

C. The Defendant asserts to the effect that there was king evidence, such as that the Plaintiff had been receiving a majority of treatment due to spine damage, shoulder ebrate damage and ebrate disease from before the instant accident, and that it should be reflected therein.

According to the statements in evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 7, the Plaintiff is recognized as having received multiple treatment from around July 31, 2013 to around July 31, 2013, prior to the occurrence of the instant accident.

However, each evidence Nos. 26, 27, 28, and 29 was written, the result of the first instance court’s entrustment of physical examination to Seoul Hospital (the response of September 3, 2015), the result of the first instance court’s entrustment of physical examination (the response of April 29, 2016), the result of the first instance court’s response to fact-finding on affiliated hospitals of the colleges and universities (new and foreign countries) of the first instance court (the response of January 21, 2016 and August 22, 2016), and the result of the first instance court’s order to submit the medical care benefits statement to the National Health Insurance Corporation (the submission of the medical care benefits statement of February 27, 2015) and the whole arguments are as follows. In other words, the Plaintiff’s past medical treatment statement asserted by the Defendant appears to be a chronic pain and experience of treatment due to serious injury, and the Plaintiff suffers from shock and escape from the external evidence submitted by the Defendant.