A. On June 23, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 22:50 on June 23, 2013, at the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Apartment Guard room, the Plaintiff, who was waiting for a security guard, reported it to the Defendant; (b) caused the Plaintiff’s face on his hand by exceeding the Plaintiff’s face on one-time cover of a smuggling guard room; and (c) caused injury to the Plaintiff, such as brain-dead, which requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment.

(hereinafter “instant tort”). (b)

On August 22, 2014, the Defendant was prosecuted for the instant tort, and was sentenced to a conviction of a fine of one million won in the Seoul Southern District Court (No. 2014No678). The said judgment became final and conclusive on January 15, 2015.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 8, and 12, the facts to this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts of recognition of damages liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the tort of this case.

B. (1) The scope of liability for damages is limited to the scope of the damage compensation liability: (a) the Plaintiff was engaged in the post-employment manager’s duties, infant care duties, and airport area women’s safe mind-finding duties; (b) the same year from June 24, 2013 due to the instant tort.

8. The plaintiff's assertion that he/she suffered loss from lost income of KRW 3,600,00 for two months since he/she failed to perform his/her duty as a climate manager among the above three types of businesses until December 24. However, there is no evidence to find that the plaintiff was unable to perform his/her duty as a climate manager because he/she lost his/her entire ability to work for the above period. Thus, this part of the plaintiff'

Meanwhile, in full view of the purport of evidence No. 5-7, the Plaintiff is deemed to have received hospitalized treatment at a hospital for five days from July 2, 2013 to July 6, 2013, based on the overall purport of the pleadings, but the following circumstances, namely, the Defendant’s tort of this case, based on the overall purport of the pleadings, are acknowledged in the items of evidence No. 3, No. 4, No. 5-7, and No. 12.