beta
(영문) 울산지방법원 2019.08.29 2018나2318

손해배상

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff operates a half-line retail store called “D” in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, and the Defendant operates the frequency of “E” in the vicinity of the Plaintiff’s above retail store.

B. On October 17, 2017, the Defendant, on the ground that the Plaintiff was not taking an examination against the ordinary person himself/herself on the ground that he/she was not in the examination of the foregoing “D,” and the Defendant, on his/her hand, caused the Plaintiff’s injury on the right-hand scambling that requires approximately seven days of treatment (hereinafter “the instant injury”).

C. As above, the Defendant was indicted by the Ulsan District Court Decision 2017Da11799 and was issued a summary order stating that “the Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000” on October 20, 2017, and the said summary order was finalized on January 6, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry and video of Gap evidence 1 to 12 (including virtual numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Since the Defendant suffered damages as above, as such, inflicted injury upon the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for the tort to the Plaintiff.

3. Scope of liability for damages

A. Medical expenses: According to the evidence No. 3 of 131,700 won, the Plaintiff’s disbursement of KRW 131,700 in relation to the instant injury can be acknowledged.

B. The Plaintiff due to the Defendant’s obstruction of business (on-site loss) sought compensation of the amount equivalent to KRW 5,400,000 during the period in which he/she could not operate “D”, his/her store, in order to receive treatment by suffering from the instant injury.

However, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone was insufficient to operate the above store for the treatment of the injury of this case.

It is not enough to recognize the name of 5,400,000 won or the amount equivalent to such business loss, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and this part of the assertion shall be accepted.