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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

A. From December 2, 2013 to February 28, 2014, the Plaintiff was working as a vice president of the D skin Management Office E (hereinafter “D”) located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Northern District C 206 (hereinafter “D”), and the Defendant is the spouse of Nonparty F, a representative of D.

B. On February 28, 2014, at around 20:00, the Defendant discussed the Plaintiff’s performance fee issues with D, and became a vision. The Plaintiff assaulted the Plaintiff, such as the Plaintiff’s defect in returning home, Plaintiff’s arms, etc. after photographing the skin management machinery with a cellular phone, and then going home as they were.

(hereinafter “instant harmful act”). C.

On July 30, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced by the Seoul Northern District Court to a fine of 300,000 won for the crime of assault (No. 2014 High Court Decision 2762) and the judgment was finalized on August 7, 2015.

[On the other hand, with respect to the part of the defendant's indecent act by force, the prosecutor belonging to the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office issued a disposition of unwritten evidence (defluence of evidence) on September 29, 2014]

2. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff did not live in the workplace for about three months due to the harmful act of this case, and spent medical expenses, and suffering from mental suffering, so the defendant should pay 7,230,000 won (=2,000 won for the medical expenses of KRW 5,00,000 for lost earnings) to the plaintiff as damages (=2,00,000 for consolation money).

3. Determination

A. According to the above acknowledged facts, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the harmful act of this case.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above recognition of the portion of lost profit per day within the scope of liability for damages and the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 7 as a whole, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is difficult to deem that the plaintiff failed to engage in economic activities for three months due to the harmful act of this case.