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. Facts of recognition;
A. At around 1:00 to 2:00 on August 7, 2014, the Defendant: (a) sent the Plaintiff’s chest part on the 6th floor DPC on the ground of the C, Masung-si, with the Plaintiff’s chest part on 2 occasions; (b) continued to drink the Plaintiff’s face part, resulting in an injury, such as a non-furnal felcing, which requires approximately 3 weeks of treatment; and (c) suffered injury on the Plaintiff’s face part; (d) 1.5 cm above the Plaintiff’s left eye.
B. The Plaintiff spent 690,370 won as medical expenses due to the above Defendant’s assault.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 3, purport of whole pleading
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. According to the facts acknowledged in Paragraph 1 of the basis of liability, since the Defendant abused and inflicted an injury on the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall compensate the Plaintiff for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff as tort liability.
B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to evidence Nos. 4 (including paper numbers) and Nos. 1 through 3, the Plaintiff’s liability is limited to 50% of the Defendant’s liability by taking account of the Plaintiff’s negligence. The Plaintiff’s negligence is limited to 50% of the Defendant’s liability in consideration of the Plaintiff’s negligence.
3. Scope of damages.
(a) Medical expenses 690,370 won;
B. Restriction 1) The Defendant’s liability ratio: 50%, 50%, 345,185 won (= 690,370 won), 50% of the Defendant’s liability ratio)
C. The consolation money shall be set at KRW 2,00,000, taking into account the developments of the assault of this case, the Plaintiff’s age, the parts and degree of the injury, the ratio of both parties’ fault, and all other circumstances shown in the pleadings of this case.
Therefore, the Defendant’s defense against the Plaintiff is reasonable as to the existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligation from August 7, 2014, which was the assault date of the instant case.