beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.06.17 2015나6887

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. At around 16:00 on April 2, 2015, the Defendant met with the Plaintiff in the office located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul and underground for the settlement of Internet sales business operated with the Plaintiff.

나. 피고는 자신의 명의로 개통하여 원고가 사용하던 휴대전화의 명의 이전과 관련하여 서로 의견이 맞지 않아 시비가 되어 사무실 내 및 사무실 밖 노상에서 원고의 멱살을 잡고 손가락을 꺽으며 바닥에 넘어뜨리려고 하였으며, 또 위 사무실에서 케이티(KT)서부지사에 가는 길에 택시 안에서 주먹으로 원고의 옆구리를 때려 원고에게 각 3주간의 치료를 요하는 ‘경ㆍ요추부 염좌 및 긴장’ 및 ‘치과보철물의 파절 및 상실’의 상해를 입혔다.

C. The Plaintiff on October 1, 2015

A summary order of KRW 300,000 (Seoul Western District Court 2015 High Court 6011) was issued due to the facts constituting the crime stated in the paragraph. On October 7, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for formal trial against the above summary order, but the above summary order was finalized on October 21, 2015 upon withdrawal of the application for formal trial.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is responsible for compensating for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the assault of this case. According to the evidence Nos. 2 through 7 of this case, the plaintiff can be found to have suffered damages of KRW 664,400 for medical expenses incurred by the defendant's assault of this case, KRW 700,00 for medical expenses incurred in the future treatment expenses incurred in the dental surgery and limited amount, KRW 300,00 for the medical certificate issuance expenses incurred due to the defendant's assault of this case. 2) The defendant asserted that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone cannot be viewed as having caused the plaintiff's existing medical expenses and the medical expenses incurred in the future dental surgery of this case. However, as seen above, the defendant cannot be viewed as having suffered damages due to the plaintiff's previous medical expenses and the medical expenses incurred in the dental surgery of this case.