A. On August 14, 2014, at around 23:00, the Plaintiff: (a) was sealed by the Defendant’s her mar while she was in the middle of the road adjacent to the Dmarte in Damar C, with the Defendant’s mar; (b) the Defendant was at the center, felled into the drain pipe, and suffered from the injury of the steke, etc.

The accident is the same as the accident described in the attached Form, and hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case"). (b)

The Defendant received hospitalized treatment from August 15, 2014 to September 5, 2014 due to the instant accident.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 2-4 and the purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s obligation to compensate for damages to the Defendant due to the instant accident does not exceed KRW 6,904,813 [22 days of hospitalization = KRW 1,698,287 medical expenses of KRW 6,307,70 of daily income of 22 days + KRW 500,00 of consolation money which is limited to 80% of the Plaintiff’s responsibility]. Since the Defendant sought an excessive payment of damages, the Defendant’s claim that the Defendant does not have any obligation above the above amount is satisfied. (ii) The Defendant’s damages that the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Defendant (i.e., KRW 2,71,369 of daily income of KRW 2,729,219, KRW 6,321,530 of medical expenses in the future ( KRW 660,620, KRW 2,000 of consolation money of KRW 2,00).

B. 1) According to the above facts of recognition, the accident of this case constitutes a tort against the defendant, and the plaintiff is liable to compensate the defendant for damages caused by the accident of this case. 2) The plaintiff asserts that the defendant neglected his/her duty to protect himself/herself by viewing his/her defense at a dangerous place in drinking circumstances at night, and that the defendant's age is 60 years of age, and 20% of negligence should be offset. However, the accident of this case is a tort against the plaintiff's intentional act, and there is no evidence that the damage was increased due to the defendant's age. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is rejected.

C. The scope of damages No. 5 and No. 7 are stated respectively.