1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition and the occurrence of liability for damages is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the traffic accident of this case contributed to the defendant's textile converging, the defendant's textile converging, and the ratio of contribution to the 30%, and the treatment period considering the above contribution ratio is three years.

Therefore, among the Defendant’s total medical expenses of KRW 48,629,860 borne by the Plaintiff, the medical expenses of KRW 12,342,490 paid up to February 6, 2010, which took account of the contribution ratio of the instant traffic accident 30% (=12,342,490 x 0.3). Thus, the Defendant is obligated to refund the Plaintiff the said KRW 3,702,747 x 0.0 x 0.3) pursuant to Article 11(4) of the Automobile Accident Compensation Guarantee Act and the delay damages therefrom.

3. In a case where the scope of compensation for damage has contributed to the occurrence of the victim’s occurrence of a specific injury by the aggravation of the period of injury or the expansion of the degree of disability after the completion of treatment, as a result of the aggravation of the period of specific injury or the aggravation of the degree of disability after the completion of treatment, it is reasonable to have the victim bear the amount of compensation corresponding to the victim’s total damages according to the degree recognized as having contributed to the occurrence of the result of the whole injury including a specific injury (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da8902, May 30, 2019), and the physical transfer of the victim should be deemed as identical

(See Supreme Court Decision 90Da17972 delivered on May 28, 1991). If the victim's king could have deliberated on the degree of contribution to the legacy, the victim's king should not be considered only for the reason of the tortfeasor's limitation of liability, but also be determined on the basis of the degree of contribution to the legacy after a more review and determination of the degree of contribution to the legacy.

Supreme Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on April 26, 2002