손해배상(기)
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 6,039,666; (b) KRW 685,580 to Plaintiff B; and (c) KRW 685,580 to each of the said money. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20672, Feb. 9, 2018>
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiffs are married couple.
B. At around 21:00 on February 8, 2018, the Defendant, while drinking alcohol with the Plaintiffs in a mutually cafeteria called “F” in Scheon-si E, the Defendant, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s smoking out of the Plaintiff’s and the restaurant is contrary to the Plaintiff A, was put on 2 times the Plaintiff’s knives.
C. As above, the Defendant, after the assaulting the Plaintiff A, drank the Plaintiff into a restaurant and drink again, and the Plaintiff B referred to as “her husband fighted well,” and the Plaintiff A also read as “spaming ba,” and on February 9, 2018, after going out of the restaurant, the Plaintiff A’s inner part of the part of the Plaintiff A, who laid the body in front of the restaurant, was sold as a blue and blue on February 9, 2018, after going out of the restaurant.”
(hereinafter referred to as “the instant assault”). 【No dispute exists concerning the instant assault (based for recognition), Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by adding each of the above basic facts and Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6 through 11, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) to the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendant committed the assault against the plaintiff A, resulting in the defendant's injury of "non-commercial species," etc., such as "non-commercial species," which require approximately 8 weeks of treatment," "in the inner part, and tensions (in the inner part, the sects of the left part)," "in the outer stress disorder," and "in the outer stress disorder, etc., the plaintiff Eul's spouse, the plaintiff Eul suffered injury, such as "non-emergency stress disorder," etc. due to mental shock caused by the assault of this case. The evidence No. 3 of this case alone is insufficient.
In addition, the defendant's act constitutes a tort that constitutes a crime, and the defendant suffered from the plaintiffs.