손해배상
1. The Defendant’s KRW 8,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from October 14, 2011 to August 19, 2015.
1. On October 14, 201, at around 20:50, the Defendant found the Plaintiff’s “D” restaurant operated by Suwon-si, Suwon-si, on the ground that the Plaintiff continued to engage in funeral services without concluding a contract despite the expiration of the term of the lease agreement entered into with the Plaintiff, and the Defendant 5 times the Plaintiff’s trees on his hand with his hand on the hand.
(hereinafter “instant assault.” The Plaintiff asserted that he was faced with head in glass while being pushed ahead of the Defendant’s assault due to the Defendant’s assault, but there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it.
[Reasons for Recognition] 8-1 and 2-1 of Evidence A
2. According to the facts acknowledged above, the assault of this case constitutes tort against the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the assault of this case.
3. Scope of liability for damages
A. Active damages (treatment costs, etc.) The Plaintiff suffered injury, which was shocked on the brain side due to the instant assault and was based on cerebrovascular and requires at least 16 weeks’ medical treatment. The Plaintiff claimed KRW 6,404,170, including emergency transport treatment costs, surgery costs, hospitalization costs, medicine costs, and medical treatment costs.
However, each statement of Gap's evidence Nos. 3, 5, 6, and 8 (including virtual numbers) is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant's proppy transfusion was caused by the assault of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Rather, according to the evidence Nos. 8-1 and 2 of the evidence No. 8-2, it is difficult to find out whether the defendant's bovine spongiform encephalopathy contributed to the outbreak and the cause of the outbreak of this case's cerebriform species from the head of Samsung Seoul Hospital, etc. in the relevant criminal case without credit.
The existence of cerebral connection possessed by the Plaintiff is the risk of probamination.
The defendant found the part of the plaintiff's chest part or neck.