손해배상(기)
1. Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) C and Defendant D are as follows: (a) each Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 8,529,828; and (b) August 11, 2014.
A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be deemed to be combined.
1. Basic facts
A. On August 10, 2014, Plaintiff A and Defendant D suffered two images by the Maritime State in which employees G were located in the “F” located in the Gansi-si District E (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) operated by Defendant C and Defendant D around August 20, 2014.
B. Defendant D, along with the Plaintiff, visited H hospital, which is a special video treatment hospital, to receive outpatient treatment. For about 10 days thereafter, Defendant D visited H hospital, along with the Plaintiff, and paid hospital expenses and transportation expenses to the Plaintiff, instead of Plaintiff A.
C. On August 18, 2014, Defendant C was the principal owner of the instant restaurant, and was also responsible for damages, such as Plaintiff A’s medical expenses and sexual surgery. D.
Plaintiff
A After receiving hospital treatment at the mixed H hospital, A claimed hospital treatment costs and a large amount of taxi expenses, and the Defendants refused to receive medical treatment at the nearest hospital.
E. On September 25, 2014, from around 20:00 to 20:30 on the same day, Plaintiff B and his husband interfered with the business by stating that “I am in the instant restaurant “I am open to the telephone without a fluorous color,” and the Plaintiff was sentenced to a fine of KRW 400,000 for each of the above criminal facts (Seoul District Court Decision 2015Ma103) and the above judgment became final and conclusive as they are.
(U) Facts that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 10, 13 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments as a whole.
2. Judgment on the principal lawsuit
A. According to the facts as seen earlier prior to the occurrence of damages liability, the Defendants are employees G’ employers, who are liable for damages incurred by G to the Plaintiffs.
The defendants are those operating the restaurant of this case only by the defendant C, and the defendant D assisted as the children of the defendant C.