logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.11.17 2016나303121
손해배상(자)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The court of the first instance’s explanation concerning this case is to delete “There is no evidence that △△△ Party E-Wz was repaired,” and the reasoning of the first instance judgment is as stated in the part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for adding the following determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion occurred due to the instant accident, and the relevant disability is anticipated to fall under the salt items of spine damage under the Mabrod Corneral Disability Assessment Table, and the Plaintiff’s involvement in the Plaintiff’s king was 70%, and the Plaintiff’s labor ability loss rate is 4.2% (14% x 0.3) and one year after the award (hereinafter “instant disability”).

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s passive damage caused by the instant disability shall be included in the amount of damages.

B. We examine whether the instant disability occurred due to the instant accident to the Plaintiff, and the evidence corresponding thereto was presented to the first instance court’s inquiry into the Korea Compensation Medical Association, stating that “the instant accident caused the instant disability to the Plaintiff,” and that “the instant disability occurred to the Plaintiff due to the instant accident.”

However, the following circumstances, which can be recognized by the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 13, 15 and 16 of Eul, are as follows: ① Mabroe disability assessment method (Evidence No. 13) can be treated, so it is not an object of treatment, and it is not an object of disability, and it is applied to the Korea Market where the fluore fluore fluore fluor is objectively recognized. However, there is no evidence to support the Plaintiff that there was a limitation of 1/4 or more of the normal sports due to the fluoral fluoral fluor, ② JJ of I major, and K medical college I and K medical specialist of the Gyeyang University.

arrow