손해배상(기)
1. The part against the plaintiff A in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. Judgment of the court of first instance;
1. Establishment of liability for damages;
A. On March 5, 2015, the Defendant: (a) committed assault to Plaintiff A (the husband of Plaintiff B) who was frighting to dispute at the E community hall located in Dong-gu, Nam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul; and (b) committed assault to Plaintiff A (the husband of Plaintiff B) with a wall, such as spathing and spathing, thereby causing bodily injury, such as light fright, etc., for two weeks of treatment.
Since then, when the defendant drinks the left part of the plaintiff B who b's flag, he saw the body of the inner wall and the inner wall in need of about 8 weeks medical treatment.
The defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million for this reason.
(The grounds for recognition), Gap 1, 2, and 6 evidence, and the purport of the entire pleadings, are as follows. (The Daejeon District Court Branch Decision 2015Ma660 decided Feb. 5, 2016)
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs as the defendant's bodily injury.
2. Scope of liability for damages
(a) Expenses incurred in relation to Plaintiff A’s affirmative damage: KRW 108,274: 340,000 (based on recognition) 1,3,4,5, and evidence 2), taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the record, such as the details and content of the injury of consolation money, 1,000,000 won: KRW 1,448,274;
B. Plaintiff B’s affirmative damage 1: Costs for issuing a medical certificate of KRW 2,244,713: KRW 231,00 [based on recognition] Party B’s evidence 8,9 (including paper numbers), and the total of KRW 4,040,160 paid for the medical expenses and medicine expenses for the protruding (No. 4-5) in the F Hospital, G Hospital, and H pharmacy after January 2016, it is difficult to recognize that there was a proximate causal relation with the Defendant’s assault in light of the following circumstances: ① On March 6, 2015, the following day after the Defendant’s assault was issued, Plaintiff B was provided with medical treatment in the “Icheon-type department” located in the river, and received no medical diagnosis on the “Icheon-type department” (Article 4-5). However, Plaintiff B received no diagnosis on the “Icheon-type department” and it was merely a diagnosis report (Article 2015).