beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share the Plaintiff’s KRW 1,402,340, and KRW 500,000 to Plaintiff B, and KRW 746,600 to Plaintiff C, and Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The grounds for a claim shall be as specified in the attached Form;
(Provided, That part of the claim against Plaintiffs 2. through 6 is limited, and “Plaintiff 2. through 6.” is deemed respectively to be “Plaintiff 1. through 5.” respectively. The part of the claim against the Defendants in attached Form 1. (H) was withdrawn.
2. Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act (Judgment by public notice) of each applicable provision of Acts;
3. The scope of damage compensation for part partially dismissed shall be deemed to be limited.
According to the statements in Gap evidence 2 through 7 (including the number of branch numbers), the following facts are recognized after the fire occurred on November 10, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the "fire accident in this case"), from November 23, 2018 to December 6, 2018, from November 10, 2018 to November 17, 2018, respectively, and Eul from November 11, 2018 to November 17, 2018, respectively, and from November 11, 2018 to November 17, 2018. The plaintiff Eul received hospital treatment from the plaintiff Eul on November 24, 2018, and the medical expenses (limited to the part at which the plaintiff bears the burden) for the plaintiffs during the same period:
Plaintiff
Although the plaintiffs do not specify the amount of property damage (treatment cost) among the amount of damages claimed, the plaintiffs seek the total amount of damages and consolation money for each property as claimed in their claim, so the remaining amount obtained by deducting consolation money which the plaintiffs seek from the amount claimed shall be deemed as property damage.
C 200,600,602,340 B 10,000 no evidence exists that the sum of the medical expenses (one's own expenses) A A 11,00,000,00 395,540 6,800 B 10,300 B 10,000 9,500 E 9,775,000 46,600,600 D 18,250,500 9,500 E 9,775,000 42,300,42,3042,300, and 50,740,00 for the treatment period other than the above period in light of the content of each of the diagnosis, it is insufficient to recognize the treatment expenses for the injury or disease suffered by the plaintiffs due to the fire accident in this case. Accordingly, there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.