The plaintiff's remaining appeals are dismissed.

1. Determination on the assertion on causation

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that it is difficult to view the Plaintiff’s right-hand opening of the opening of the Plaintiff’s right-hand check and the restriction on exercise of the right-hand check (hereinafter “instant obstacle”) due to the Defendant’s assault. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the probative value of the relevant criminal judgment, by misapprehending the rules of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the possibility that the Plaintiff’s spathism has deteriorated due to the Defendant’s assault, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on causation.

The facts constituting the crime of the summary order established against the defendant are that the defendant puts the right spons and spons to the plaintiff, and the judgment of the court below that it is difficult to regard the right spons to the right spons as a result of the defendant's above act in the above criminal case.

Inasmuch as the plaintiff's assertion on this is not inconsistent with the established facts, it cannot be accepted.

2. Determination as to the claim for consolation money

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below dismissed the plaintiff's claim for consolation money on the ground that there is no causation between the defendant's assault and the plaintiff's disability, and that the plaintiff's claim of this case was not reasonable without any need to examine the remaining issues. The evidence and records duly adopted and examined by the court below reveal the following facts. ① The defendant, while drinking with other drivings, including the plaintiff, was in the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff neglected himself. ② The plaintiff was treated at K Hospital following the next day, ② The plaintiff was diagnosed at K Hospital, and the doctor N at the time diagnosed the plaintiff's symptoms on the right angles. (3) The defendant was charged with the above act that the plaintiff had the right-hand shoulders and salkes, etc., and the defendant's above act was confirmed to constitute a tort against the plaintiff as an act of assault or bodily injury against the plaintiff.

In addition, the plaintiff's claim of this case for damages on the ground that the defendant's above assault was the main cause of the claim of this case. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff's claim of this case for damages is included in the purport of seeking compensation for consolation money based on the injury recognized as a causal relationship if the causal relationship between the above assault and the instant disability is not recognized. Nevertheless, the court below's dismissal of the plaintiff's claim of consolation money in whole without examining this part on the ground that the causal relationship between the defendant's assault and the instant disability is not recognized, was erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles as to consolation money, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment below regarding the claim for consolation money is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining appeal by the plaintiff is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Kim Gin-young