손해배상(기)
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 5,650,00 for Plaintiff A, KRW 500,00 for Plaintiff B, and each of the said money for Plaintiff B, from November 15, 2013 to May 2015.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition (1) The defendant (D) is a person driving a cargo vehicle; the plaintiff A (E) is a person who had a parking problem with the defendant; the plaintiff B (FF) is a child of the plaintiff A.
(2) On November 14, 2013, around 16:50, the Defendant parked one ton truck on the front of the Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G on the front of the road, without complying therewith, even though the Plaintiff, who resided in the front of the G on the front of the G, called “I do not park a place where I want to park.”
Accordingly, the plaintiff A, who had been broom, was sroombru and the defendant's body. Accordingly, the defendant tried to catch the plaintiff A's hand, cut the plaintiff's hand, cut the plaintiff A's hand, cut the plaintiff's broom, cut the plaintiff's hand, cut the broom, cut the plaintiff A's hand, cut the broom, cut the plaintiff's hand, cut the 90-day medical treatment for 90 days to the plaintiff A.
(3) On January 29, 2014, the Defendant was indicted for committing an injury to the Seoul Southern District Court (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2014Da1360), and on February 11, 2914, a summary order of KRW 2,00,000 was issued and the summary order became final and conclusive on April 2, 2014.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. Since it is apparent that the Defendant’s act of injury to Plaintiff A (hereinafter “the act of injury in this case”) which was revealed in the recognition of liability and the above recognition of the limitation, is an illegal act against the Plaintiff, the Defendant is liable to compensate Plaintiff A for damages, and the Defendant is liable to pay consolation money for mental suffering suffered by Plaintiff B to Plaintiff B, his/her father and wife.
(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da41377 delivered on April 23, 199). However, according to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff A also abused the defendant as rainwater, and such act of the plaintiff A has an aspect of inducing the act of injury of this case. < Amended by Act No. 1693, Aug. 24, 1965>