2. B

3. C

4. D;

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Lee Young-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Law Firm Space, Attorney Lee In-bok et al.

Attorney Kim Sung-won, Lee Sung-ho

2. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including the serial number):

A. The Plaintiffs and the Defendant came to know through F, a social relation network service (SNS).

B. The Defendant assaulted and injured the Plaintiffs as follows.

○ Around 16:00 on April 24, 2016, the Defendant was found to have a defect in talking with the Plaintiff A, but the Plaintiff refused to do so by the Plaintiff. The Defendant, as a wooden village, committed assaulted against the Plaintiff A by threatening the snow of the Plaintiff as with the sled fish.

○ Around 19:40 on March 4, 2017, the Defendant: (a) expressed a desire to kill the Plaintiff C, who was prone in front of Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul, to die; and (b) assaulted the flab.

○ On April 30, 2017, around 20:30, the Defendant committed assault, such as: (a) around 20:30, the Defendant: (b) considered Plaintiff D, who had talked rapidly in the vicinity of 172 subway No. 5 subway No. 172 subway No. 7 in the air route near the air route of 172 subway No. 5; (c) but (d) as Plaintiff D was fright and refused to do so, the Defendant committed assault, such as frighting Plaintiff D’s backing the backline and drinking.

○ On May 1, 2017, around 19:10, the Defendant discovered Plaintiff A who took photographs in the vicinity of 172 subway No. 5 subway Station No. 7 in the luminous Station No. 172 subway No. 5, and led Plaintiff A to “Yhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

As above, the Defendant assaulted the Plaintiff A, and the Plaintiff B went to the Defendant to restrain it. However, the Defendant inflicted injury on the Plaintiff B, such as taking the head debt of the Plaintiff B and causing a second name that could not be known because the treatment period cannot be ascertained on several occasions.

C. On October 11, 2017, a summary order of KRW 1,000,000 was issued by the Defendant for the crime of assault and bodily injury against the Plaintiffs, and the said summary order became final and conclusive on November 14, 2017 (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017 High Court Decision 20028), and on the other hand, the Defendant’s complaint against the Plaintiffs was concluded non-prosecution disposition to the effect that the Defendant is not guilty.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The Defendant’s assault against the Plaintiffs constitutes a tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act. Since the Plaintiffs suffered medical expenses and mental damages due to the above tort, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff, KRW 5,000,000, KRW 5,000 to the Plaintiff B, and KRW 1,00,000 to the Plaintiff C and the Plaintiff D as damages.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The amount of consolation money shall be reduced in consideration of the fact that both the plaintiffs and the defendant were injured by the plaintiffs' assault.

In addition, the above acts of the plaintiffs constitute tort against the defendant and the defendant has the right to claim damages arising therefrom. Therefore, the claims shall be offset against the damages claim of the plaintiffs within the scope of equal amount with the damages claim of this case.

3. Occurrence and scope of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is responsible for compensating the plaintiffs for physical and mental damages caused by illegal acts, such as his/her own assault.

(b) Medical expenses;

If the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 10 and 11 (including paper numbers) is added to the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendant's assault committed by the plaintiff A to pay the total of KRW 112,700 as the plaintiff received medical treatment from an I Hospital located in Gyeonggi-si, and the plaintiff B received medical treatment from May 2, 2017 to January 3, 2019, and it can be recognized that the plaintiff paid the total of KRW 432,170 as the damages, since it can be recognized that the plaintiff paid the total of KRW 432,170.

(c) Compensation money;

1) In calculating consolation money due to a tort, taking into account the circumstances on the part of the victim, such as the victim’s age, occupation, social status, property and living conditions, degree of suffering from damage, degree of negligence of the victim, etc. as well as the victim’s intentional or negligent act, motive and cause of the harmful act, and attitude of the perpetrator after the tort, together with the circumstances on the part of the perpetrator, along with the principle of fair liability for damages. The court may determine the amount of consolation money at its own discretion by taking into account such various circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da7149, Dec. 12, 2009).

2) According to the facts found above, the defendant has a duty to avoid mental damage suffered by the plaintiffs due to violence, etc., taking into account all the circumstances indicated in the records of this case such as the relation between the plaintiffs and the defendant, the frequency and degree of the violence, the circumstance and degree of the injury, etc., the plaintiffs' consolation money should be determined as follows (On the other hand, there is insufficient evidence to deem that the defendant committed sexual misconduct and scing against the plaintiff A, so this part of

○ Plaintiff A 1,000,000

○ Plaintiff B 500,000

○ Plaintiff C, Plaintiff D, each of 200,000 won

(d) limitation of liability and defenses against set-off;

The defendant asserts that the defendant should limit the defendant's liability in consideration of these circumstances since the plaintiffs caused the defendant's injury, and the defendant did assault against the defendant in the course of assault. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above fact, and the above argument is without merit.

In addition, the defendant also sustained an injury due to the plaintiffs' assault, and caused damage, such as damage of carmeras, and therefore, the defendant's defense is set off against the equivalent amount among the plaintiffs' damage claims based on the automatic claim. However, set-off against damage claims arising from an intentional tort is not allowed, which is the same as the case where the automatic claim was inflicted on the fighting in which the automatic claim was simultaneously made, and thus, the defendant's defense is without merit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da38444, Feb. 25, 1994).

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff A 1,112,700 won (112,700 won + 1,000,000 won) and 932,170 won (i.e., 432,170 won + 500,000 won) to the plaintiff B, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 1, 2017 to February 13, 2019, which is the date of this decision, by the defendant's dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation to perform.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims are partly accepted.