2. B

3. C

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1

2. E:

[Judgment of the court below]

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 70% is borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder is borne by the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. At around 12:20 on August 8, 2017, the Defendants kept golf in G golf courses located in the Gyeonggi Pyeong-gunF, and the Plaintiffs, prior to the Defendants, went to know that they had been engaged in golf and had a serious dispute with the Plaintiff, on the ground that they run a astronomical game. Accordingly, the Defendants continued to have the Plaintiff’s face and body part of the above golf course sent back to drinking and drinking, and continued to have the Plaintiff’s face and body part of the Plaintiff B and C’s body part from the above golf course’s parking site to the drinking and drinking. Accordingly, the Defendants jointly joined the Plaintiff for about 28 days, together with the Plaintiff for 28 days, caused the Plaintiff to suffer injury, such as an injury, such as a 8 walm frame, which requires the treatment of the Plaintiff for about 28 days, and caused the Plaintiff’s face to the Plaintiff C’s 14 days other than the Plaintiff’s face for 14 days, respectively.

B. The Defendants received a summary order of KRW 3,000,000 (No. 2017 Gowon District Court Decision 201Da3841) on October 31, 2017 due to the acts described in the above paragraph (hereinafter “the instant injury”) and the said summary order was finalized around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants are liable to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the injury of this case as joint tortfeasor.

(b) Scope of damages;

1) Medical expenses

The facts of the Plaintiff’s medical expenses incurred due to the instant injury are as follows: (a) the sum total of KRW 767,130; (b) the sum total of KRW 456,530; and (c) the sum total of KRW 170,644 of the medical expenses paid by the Plaintiff C, without dispute between the parties; or (b) the statement of the evidence set forth in subparagraphs A through 10 (including the number of numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport

2) Consolation money

Plaintiff A and B sought payment of KRW 15,000,000, and Plaintiff C sought payment of KRW 10,000,000. However, in full view of the relationship between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, the details and motive of the Defendants’ act of assault, the content and method of assault, the degree of damage to the Plaintiffs, and other all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings of this case, the amount of consolation money shall be determined as KRW 4,00,000 for Plaintiff A and B, and KRW 2,00,000 for Plaintiff C.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendants jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff A for KRW 4,767,130 (i.e., 767,130 + solatium 4,00,000 + KRW 4,530), and KRW 4,456,530 (i.e., 456,530 + solatium 4,000 + KRW 4,170,000), and KRW 2,170,644 for Plaintiff C (i.e., 170,644 + KRW 2,000 + KRW 170,644 + KRW 2,000), as sought by the Plaintiff, for each of the above money, the Defendants is liable to pay damages for delay calculated annually from August 8, 2017, to May 7, 2019, which is the date the judgment was rendered to the effect that the Defendants resisting the existence and scope of their obligations.

3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. Summary of the assertion

Defendant D only requested the Plaintiffs to promptly proceed with the game, and the Plaintiffs committed an act of singinging them with a bath with Defendant D, and sing away with a golf loan, and even after the game was completed, the Defendants committed an assault against Defendant D by giving a serious bath, and the details of such assault should be taken into account as a ground for offsetting negligence.

B. Determination

The statements and images of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 are difficult to deem that the Plaintiffs caused the assault, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Moreover, considering various circumstances such as the background leading to the instant injury and the details thereof, it is not reasonable to offset the negligence in the instant case or limit the Defendants’ liability. Thus, the aforementioned assertion by the Defendants is rejected.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.