A. The facts of recognition 1) On February 28, 2014, around 22:10, the Defendant, at the E-type parking lot located in Northern-gu, Northern-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si (hereinafter “instant assault”), filed a dispute over the Plaintiff’s Mapo-gu Mapo-gu Mapo-gu Mapo-gu Mapo-si, with the Plaintiff’s Mapo-gu Mapo-gu Mapo-gu Mapo-si, and the Plaintiff’s Mapo-gu Mapo-gu Mapo-gu Mapo-gu Mapo-gu Mapo-ro, and the Plaintiff’s face

2) As a result of the instant assault, Plaintiff A suffered bodily injury, such as light cryp, knee-knee-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-n

Plaintiff

A was suffering from mental disorder, such as physical disorder, apprehension, etc.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages caused by the assault of this case due to the tort.

The defendant asserts to the effect that "the plaintiff B was sleeping the defendant's head, and the plaintiff A also abused the defendant, such as quihing the defendant's hand and chest with the defendant's hand, and breathing the dub, etc. In light of this point, the defendant's liability for damages should be limited."

According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 4-2, 3 and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff Eul franchising the defendant's bat, and the plaintiff Eul franchising and shakeing the defendant's fats.

However, it appears that the plaintiffs' behavior was aimed at preventing the defendant's assault or passive resistance to the defendant's assault, and it is difficult to view it as the degree to lose its reasonableness in light of the course and degree of the assault in this case.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

2. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Actual Income: 252,498 (Plaintiff A) A. 5.