A. The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) around 20:40 on February 13, 2017, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol in front of the E plant located in Sinung City, where the Plaintiffs operated, and was snick in the plant, and the said Plaintiff went into dispute two times with the Plaintiff, while the said Plaintiff went into the face and body of the Plaintiff A, and went out with the face and body of the Plaintiff. On the other hand, the Plaintiff was pushed out with the Plaintiff, which was booming the Plaintiff B, thereby causing two weeks of medical treatment, including knee and knee, and interfered with the Plaintiff’s business.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, 4, and 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to such factual findings, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages caused by the tort.

(2) The court below held that the defendant's liability for damages should be limited in light of the circumstances surrounding the occurrence of the case. The part of the claim for active damages, such as the following, is hard to recognize the liability for damages, and the amount of the claim for mental damage is only a reason to be taken into account, and thus the above claim is not separately determined).

A. Plaintiff B asserts that the part of Plaintiff B’s affirmative damage claim was hospitalized in a hospital due to Defendant’s tort and paid KRW 365,591 for medical expenses.

According to the statement of evidence No. 7, Plaintiff B’s hospitalization from February 19, 2017 to February 21, 2017, the fact that Plaintiff B paid KRW 365,591 to G Hospital located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

However, each of the above evidence, evidence No. 11, evidence No. 11, and evidence Nos. 1 and 2 can be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of the pleadings, that is, the following circumstances, namely, that the hospitalization is unnecessary in the injury diagnosis document against the plaintiff No. 2, and that the plaintiff No. 2 should lapse six days after the defendant's tort.