손해배상(기)
Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked, and such revocation shall be revoked.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 15, 2018, the Defendant: (a) opened a smoking room at the Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Party located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City on the ground that the Plaintiff said the smoking smoking and smoking of tobacco; (b) brought about the Plaintiff’s face at several times due to drinking, and walking the breast part of the Plaintiff at approximately 41 days due to drinking; and (c) put the Plaintiff into the left-hand 6,7,8,8,9,9,10 the mouths of the Plaintiff, and the mouths of the inside and the mouths of the Plaintiff, which require treatment for about 41 days.
B. The Defendant was indicted by Suwon District Court Branch 2018 Gonam Branch 1742 and was sentenced to four months of imprisonment on February 20, 2019 due to the foregoing criminal facts, and filed an appeal under Suwon District Court 2019No. 1463, but the Defendant was sentenced to the dismissal of appeal on May 3, 2019 and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 11, 2019.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, and 7, and the purport of the whole theory
2. Determination
A. 1) According to the above facts, according to the above facts, the defendant suffered damages by assaulting the plaintiff and causing bodily injury (hereinafter "the tort of this case").
As such, the Plaintiff is obligated to compensate for damages incurred therefrom.
2) As to this, the Defendant’s imposition of civil liability for damages under the civil law is unfair, and the Defendant’s economic difficulty is unreasonable. However, the Defendant cannot prevent the Defendant from claiming damages for the purpose of compensating for damages solely on the ground that the Defendant was subject to criminal punishment due to the exercise of the State’s penal authority or lacks financial capacity. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.
3) However, in determining the scope of damages for tort, the court should take into account the victim's negligence even if there was no defense of offsetting the other party's negligence (Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60369 Decided February 28, 2008).