손해배상(기)
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
1. In full view of the following as a result of physical assessment of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 5 and Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 2 and of the first instance court's medical examination of the body of the character-type hospital in the National Tol University, the first instance court and the first instance court's fact-finding results in the fact-finding with respect to Tol University Nos. 1 through 3 and 5, and the first instance court's medical examination of the first instance court, the plaintiff suffered bodily injury, such as the spathal and spathal spath from the defendant while the plaintiff was living together with the tenant in the apartment owned by the defendant on Apr. 27, 2016. The defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 70,000 (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2016Da9983, Jul. 26, 2016).
Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the above illegal act.
2. Scope of liability for damages
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is seeking payment of KRW 13,60,000,00, such as the medical expenses for the Bochisa (i time of Bochisa treatment 6,800,000 x 2 times) and KRW 3,000,000 in total, 16,60,000, and damages for delay.
In this regard, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's pathal of pathal is merely a pathal and irrelevant to the defendant's assault.
B. According to each of the above evidence, evidence Nos. 8 and evidence Nos. 5, judgment 1, and evidence No. 8 and evidence No. 5, there is a need for the treatment of fluor and crin for the treatment of fluoral spath caused by the Defendant’s assault, which requires 6,800,000 won for the treatment expenses thereof, and the average lifespan of brus is seven years for the average lifespan of brus. At the time of the instant injury, the Plaintiff’s age, C, who was the C, was 5 years old and 85.2 years old for the expected life. However, it is recognized that the Plaintiff was hospitalized into brain as of July 28, 2017 after the instant injury, and it is difficult for the Plaintiff to accurately predict the Plaintiff’s life of brus, and it is based on the above recognition.