logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.03.24 2016나9772
손해배상(자)
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where part of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows. Therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The following shall be applied to the part of the court of first instance prior to the 3rd to 5th king of the court of first instance.

The following facts are: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; (b) there is a remarkable objection between the parties; (c) evidence Nos. 2 through 29; (d) Nos. 2, 7 through 12; and (e) the testimony of the witness C of the first instance; (d) the testimony of the principal of the first instance court; and (e) the principal of the Gyeongnam University Hospital; and (e) the results of the fact inquiry into the principal of the party Gangnamnam University Hospital; and (e) the results of the fact inquiry into the principal of the party Gangnamnam University Hospital; and (e) the overall purport of the arguments are as follows.

From the opening date of E’s business ( April 1, 2005), the Plaintiff engaged as a female-class master. As such, the Plaintiff’s actual income shall be calculated based on the Plaintiff’s income of those engaged in the production of clothes for at least five years’ work experience reports on the fact-finding survey conducted by the Ministry of Employment and Labor, which are published by the Ministry of Employment and Labor. The Plaintiff’s actual income shall be calculated based on the Plaintiff’s income of those engaged in the production of clothes for at least five years’ work experience as follows.

The plaintiff permanently lost the labor ability due to the aftermath disability: 7% of the labor ability (the application of C-2 of C-2 of C-B to C-B of C-B of C-B of C-C-B of C-B of C-B of C-B-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-W-C-C-C-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S.).

arrow