A. On September 15, 2015, at around 22:30, the Defendant inflicted injury on the Plaintiff, such as the bones, left-hand mouth and face mat, spawp, and spawp, which require approximately four weeks of treatment to the Plaintiff, by drinking in front of the headquarters of the Simcoat University at Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Incheon Metropolitan City, 50-ro, 74-ro, the head of the Simcoat University.

B. The Defendant was notified of the summary order of KRW 2,00,000 as Suwon District Court Decision 201Da1745 on the above facts constituting the crime, and the said summary order became final and conclusive as it did not apply for formal trial by the Defendant.

C. On the other hand, the Plaintiff, at the same time and at the same place, took care of the Defendant’s face, fighting each other’s body, and went beyond the Defendant, and thereby inflicted injury on the Defendant, such as damage to the character of a bridge, which requires treatment for about two weeks, and was sentenced to a fine of KRW 50,000 due to the above criminal facts.

(The grounds for recognition) . [Attachment] 2016 High Court 2016 High Court 742] . [Grounds for recognition] ... The fact that no dispute exists, Gap 1 through 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap 5 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant is entitled to the compensation for damages incurred by tort, 814,830 won for treatment costs, 8,210,000 won for future treatment costs, 1,000,000 won for consolation money, and 10,024,830 won for total damages, and damages for delay.

B. Determination 1) According to the facts acknowledged prior to the occurrence of liability for damages, the Defendant was injured by the Plaintiff, and thus, is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the tort. However, the Defendant’s liability is limited to 70% in consideration of the facts as seen earlier, the circumstances revealed from the aforementioned evidence, the degree of injury inflicted on the Plaintiff and the Defendant, etc., and the scope of the Defendant’s liability. 2) Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s active medical expenses incurred in the future was deprived of the bones of the Defendant’s tort, resulting in de-conformation. In order to treat the damage, the Plaintiff’s liability was limited to 814,830B.