beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 2,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from September 17, 2014 to April 7, 2015.
Reasons
1. The Defendant, on September 16, 2014, committed an assault by taking the Plaintiff’s head into consideration on the hand of the Plaintiff’s head at a drinking house near the Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu Police Station (hereinafter “the instant assault”). Accordingly, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 500,00 (Seoul Southern District Court 2015No2052) on July 6, 2016, and the Defendant appealed, but was dismissed from the appellate court (Seoul Southern District Court 2016No1346) on August 11, 2017, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time does not conflict between the parties, or by adding up all the descriptions and voices in the evidence No. 3,4, 11 through 13, 202 through 222 and the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff sustained injury, such as brain salvine and damage to the salvine (hereinafter “the instant injury”), due to the Defendant’s assault, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred therefrom, including ① (i) business suspension damage 5,483,871 won, ② (ii) 87,600 won, ③ 1,688,490 won, and ④ KRW 2 million.
3. Determination
A. Although whether the causal link between the instant injury and the instant assault was recognized, the Plaintiff was issued a medical certificate on September 18, 2014 and September 22, 2014 on the brain-dead sugar, brain-dead sugar, and pelvisal surface, it cannot be found that the Defendant was punished for the instant injury in addition to the instant assault, and in light of the developments and degree of the instant assault, and the time when the said medical certificate was issued, it is insufficient to recognize that the injury alleged by the Plaintiff was caused by the instant assault.
B. As long as it is difficult to recognize the causal link between the instant assault and the instant injury, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit without further need to determine the specific amount of damages.
C. Determination of the claim for consolation money is made.