손해배상(기)
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below.
1. Presumed facts
A. The Plaintiff’s assault against the Defendant is a taxi driver, and the Defendant was a passenger on a taxi operated by the Plaintiff.
On February 4, 2016, at around 23:00, the Plaintiff was set up with the Defendant and Si guard on the ground that the Plaintiff was erroneous on the road of tin village No. 3 in Songpa-gu, Songpa-gu, Seoul.
The Plaintiff, after being attached with the trial expenses as above, committed assault by the Defendant, on the ground that the Defendant, while getting off the taxi and her bath, followed the Defendant, and flabing his balp, and flabing the Defendant.
(hereinafter “instant assault”). (b)
The Defendant injured the Plaintiff at the above temporary location, as seen above, was put to Simba, and the Plaintiff dumpeded the Plaintiff’s arms and dumbbbbbba, and went beyond her bridge, and caused approximately two weeks of treatment to the Plaintiff. The Defendant dumped the left-hand arms in need of treatment for about two weeks.
(hereinafter "the injury of this case") . [Grounds for recognition] Gap 1, 2, and 4, and Eul 1 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit
A. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the occurrence of damages liability, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the injury of this case.
B. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that the daily income of 77 days from the instant injury was KRW 7,264,026 due to the instant injury. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant injury was 77 days of the daily income of 77 days of the Plaintiff’s medical treatment. According to each of the records, the Plaintiff was found to have received the medical treatment in C Hospital, Dental Hospital, and Seoul National University Hospital after the instant injury, but it is insufficient to recognize that the medical treatment was in causal relationship with the instant injury, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise, and it can be deemed that the Plaintiff was in a state of non-working during the period of the medical treatment.