1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following order for payment is revoked, and that part is revoked.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts 1) The defendant found that the plaintiff left the water from the water and paid the money if he/she had written the water, while returning home under the influence of alcohol in front of the Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si on May 21, 2017, at around 18:40.

“Along with drinking, the Plaintiff’s face was brupted twice, and bombed by bombing the bomb around the toilets of the community hall (hereinafter “the instant act”). As a result, the Plaintiff suffered bodily injury, such as salt and tension in the brue of the brue requiring three weeks’ medical treatment, representative salt and tension, bombs, bombs of the upper part of the brue, and bombs, and flads of the brue, etc.

2) On June 22, 2017, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 500,000 as a result of the instant bodily injury, and around that time, the said summary order became final and conclusive.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7 through 10, 16 (including, if any, branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the act of injury of this case, which is a tort.

(c)

However, the limitation of liability is limited in light of all the circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, such as the fact that the plaintiff did not cause any aspect of causing the instant injury by verbal abuse to the defendant, and the process of the instant injury and the treatment of the plaintiff before and after the act, etc., the plaintiff contributed to the occurrence and expansion of the damage of the instant case.

Therefore, in calculating the amount of damages that the defendant should compensate for to the plaintiff, it is reasonable to view that the ratio is 30% of the total amount in light of its content. Accordingly, the scope of the defendant's liability is limited to 70%.

2. Scope of damages.

A. It was found that the Plaintiff suffered loss from lost income equivalent to the total appraised value of the gold transfer on the capability to operate the Plaintiff lost due to the instant damage.