beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant against the plaintiff A and B in excess of the amount ordered below.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: the 4th 10th th 10th th malphical malphical malphism and the 4th 18th malphal malphical malphical malphical malphalmism in the first instance judgment; the 4th malph 19th malphical malphical malphalmism in the fourth malphalmism; and the scope
(f)mutual aid;
(g) Consolation money;
H. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment, except for the addition of the following determination, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. The scope of liability for damages;
F. The Defendant asserts that the amount equivalent to the percentage of the deceased’s responsibility should be deducted from the damages amount out of the amount of KRW 20,146,100 already paid out of the deceased’s medical expenses. According to the evidence Nos. 3 and 4-1 through 3, the Defendant’s total sum of KRW 20,146,100 (=i.e., KRW 154,000 in the I Hospital Hospital, Yangsan University Hospital, 154,000, KRW 19,061,40 in the I Hospital, and KRW 930,70 in the I Hospital, and hereinafter “the treatment costs of the Deceased”).
The fact that the deceased paid, and the percentage of the deceased’s liability against the small-sized damage is 70% is as seen earlier.
However, in full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the above evidence, since the treatment received by the deceased at I Hospital was unrelated to the spathnosis of the deceased, and there was no negligence on the part of the plaintiff on the accident of this case. 70% of the deceased's liability ratio recognized earlier is not only the degree of the death of the deceased, but also the rate determined by taking into account the reduction of life expectancy and the reduction of operating capacity of the deceased, and there is no evidence to view that there was a part used for the treatment of spathnosis of the deceased among the medical expenses of the deceased of this case. In addition, there is no part required for the treatment of spathnosis of the deceased of this case.