손해배상(기)
1. Defendant B’s KRW 1 million and the Plaintiff’s 5% per annum from July 4, 2015 to November 30, 2016.
Whether Defendant B’s liability for damages is established or not, and when examining the purport of the entire arguments as to Defendant B’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including the number of pages; hereinafter the same shall apply), Defendant B’s chest part of the Plaintiff’s chest part, his spouse, and the Defendant C on February 25, 2015, where the dispute between the Plaintiff’s spouse E and the Defendant C was brought about two times in both hands, and caused the Plaintiff to inflict an injury (hereinafter “instant assault”), such as brain sins, alkins, sins, and tensions, which require treatment for about two weeks, the Defendant B shall compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the instant assault.
The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant C was assaulted against Defendant C.
However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff (in particular, the testimony of the witness E is difficult to be believed when compared to the statement of the evidence No. 4 as well as the overall contents thereof) is difficult to recognize.
Rather, in light of the overall purport of the arguments as stated in the evidence No. 4 and No. 1, it is recognized that the witness of the case in a neutral position, and the plaintiff himself/herself stated that he/she was not subject to violence from the defendant C in an investigative agency, and that the defendant C was suspended from indictment as "a assault case against E".
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant C is without merit without further review.
The Plaintiff’s assertion that the scope of liability for damages is limited to the Plaintiff’s damages caused by the assault of this case, and thus, the Plaintiff seeks payment of KRW 44,44,756 in total, ① lost income (21,208,386), ② medical expenses (13,236,370), ③ consolation money (10 million). Therefore, this review is conducted in order.
The Plaintiff seeking compensation for lost income during the period from the time when the instant assault was committed on the basis of urban daily wage to the age of 65. However, the Plaintiff’s maximum working age was August 2014 when he/she reached the age of 60, while the instant assault exceeded the maximum working age.