logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.08.24 2018나45
손해배상(자)
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against A, which orders additional payment.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except where the instant case is used or added as follows. Thus, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. A statement of calculation of damages in attached Form 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance which is written or added shall be replaced by that of this judgment;

"No. 9" shall be added to "No. 9" in the fourth part of the judgment of the first instance.

The calculation table of the 6th opening of the judgment of the first instance shall be replaced by the table below.

The sixth part of the judgment of the court of first instance "g. deduction" shall be made as follows:

G. Of the medical fees of KRW 183,654,210 paid by the Defendant, the portion of “i.f. litigation” in the seventh part of the judgment of the first instance of the Plaintiff A’s negligence shall be as follows:

Therefore, the Defendants jointly and severally liable to compensate Plaintiff A for damages amounting to KRW 269,96,134 (=209,966,134 + consolation money + KRW 60,000 + KRW 60,000) and KRW 267,832,524 as cited in the first instance trial among them, shall be liable to compensate the Defendants for damages at the rate of 15% per annum from March 29, 2016, which is the date of the instant accident, to November 30, 2017, which is the date of the rendering of the first instance judgment, deemed reasonable for the Defendants to dispute whether the Defendants are liable to compensate for damages or not, and from March 29, 2016, to August 24, 2018.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. Since part of the part against the plaintiff A in the judgment of the first instance is unfair, part of the plaintiff's appeal is accepted.

arrow