beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.11.21 2016가단253883

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,978,529 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from April 27, 2016 to November 21, 2018.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. At around 20:40 on April 27, 2016, the Plaintiff’s husband C provided a bath to the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant, following the Plaintiff’s her husband, was bad when smoking was smoking at the nives adjacent to the coast route located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Seoul, stating that “I would take out tobacco as a place for smoking cessation,” and, at the same time, the Defendant, who set up a bath, took a bath to the Defendant on the ground that he would be bad. The Defendant, who set forth in the bath theory, she was pushed off with a frobial, and was pushed off by a flabing to the Defendant.

이 때 옆에 있던 원고가 이에 합세하여 손으로 피고의 멱살을 잡아 흔들었고, 원고로부터 멱살을 잡힌 피고는 원고의 손을 뿌리치고 몸을 밀쳐 원고로 하여금 바닥에 엉덩방아를 찧게 하여 원고에게 요추 2번의 급성 압박골절 등의 상해를 가하였다

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

On March 17, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 1,00,000 as a crime of injury in relation to the instant accident by this Court Decision 2016Gohap3083, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of and limitation on liability for damages;

A. According to the facts of recognition as above, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 750 of the Civil Act, since the instant accident inflicted an injury on the Plaintiff, such as acute pressure boomed boom, etc., No. 2.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the defendant's spathing of the plaintiff and C in order to unbreath them constitutes legitimate self-defense or legitimate act.

However, the evidence presented by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize the defendant's act as a self-defense or a legitimate act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, so the above argument by the

B. The limitation of liability for damages: (a) the instant accident requested the Defendant to take tobacco in a non-smoking place; (b) the Plaintiff’s husband first saw the Defendant to take a bath and flaps.

참조조문