손해배상(기)
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. According to the description of Gap evidence No. 3 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant, around November 3, 2013, may recognize the fact that the defendant, at around 10:30 on November 3, 2013, suffered bodily injury, such as a chest felling, etc. (hereinafter "the injury of this case"), to the plaintiff within the plaintiff who was pushed together with the plaintiff, for the reason that the plaintiff living in the front and rear house located in Busan Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government City, was frightening the fright of the plaintiff's growth.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages of the injury of this case.
2. Scope of liability for damages
A. According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including branch numbers in case of household numbers), and Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 1, the defendant can be acknowledged as having agreed to pay the plaintiff KRW 1,00,000 in the name of the medical expenses incurred in the instant injury. Meanwhile, the plaintiff was paid KRW 60,000 among the medical expenses by the defendant.
B. Considering the age, relationship, background and result of the injury of this case, and all other circumstances shown in the argument of this case, it is reasonable to determine the consolation money of KRW 1,00,000 as consolation money due to the injury of this case.
C. According to the theory of lawsuit, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages amounting to KRW 1,400,000 (the remainder of treatment expenses + KRW 400,000 + 1,000,000) and the damages for delay calculated at each rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from November 3, 2013, which is the date of the judgment of the first instance court, until June 19, 2014, the dispute over the existence and scope of the Defendant’s performance obligation.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is concluded.