beta
Text
1. The Defendant: KRW 9,919,610 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from May 13, 2014 to August 18, 2016.
Reasons
1. In full view of the facts that there is no dispute between the parties to the liability for damages and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, the defendant is under the influence of alcohol on March 14, 2014 at the Busan City Bank located in Seocheon-dong, Busan, Busan, and thus, the plaintiff was aware that the defendant's spouse was parked in the vehicle while driving the vehicle, and the plaintiff was aware that the plaintiff was parked in the vehicle, and the plaintiff suffered injury, such as the plaintiff's face of the vehicle, and he was aware of the plaintiff's face, and the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the above injury.
2. Scope of liability for damages
A. As the Plaintiff was hospitalized for eight days from March 14, 2014 to March 21, 2014 due to the above injury, the Plaintiff asserts that at least 673,328 won (=84,166 won x 8 days) equivalent to the daily wage of an urban ordinary worker was incurred during the pertinent period.
Therefore, in full view of the facts in dispute between the parties and the whole purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the plaintiff is acknowledged as having received hospital treatment due to the above injury from March 14, 2014 to March 21, 2014 as adult male who was 29 years of age at the time of the above injury. Meanwhile, during the above period, the daily wage of urban ordinary workers is 84,166 and the fact that the daily wage of the above period is 86 days is obvious in this court. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff did not obtain profits equivalent to 504,996 won (=84,166 won x 6 days) due to the above injury. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff's assertion about the actual income of the plaintiff is reasonable within the scope of the above recognition amount, and the part exceeding this limit is without merit.
B. (1) The Plaintiff asserts that the sum of KRW 5,310,00,000, including the expenditure of KRW 40,210 on April 7, 2014, and KRW 15,10 on April 15, 2014, for the treatment expenses incurred from the said injury, was spent.
Accordingly, according to each of the statements in Gap evidence 3-1, 2, and 3, the plaintiff.