beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 4,529,197 as well as to the plaintiff on July 2015.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. On July 26, 2014, around 04:10 on July 26, 2014, the Defendant: (a) left a taxi driving by the Plaintiff; and (b) left a handphone in front of the former EM hotel located in Busan Jung-gu; (c) the Defendant discovered the said taxi that was parked in the vicinity of the Plaintiff’s taxi and found the Defendant’s handphone at the top of the ice; and (d) the Defendant found the Defendant’s handphone on the part of the Defendant’s handphone on the part of the Plaintiff; and (e) led the Plaintiff to a mistake that the Plaintiff did not return part of the Defendant’s handphone, making it possible for the Plaintiff to take the part of the Plaintiff’s handphone.
(hereinafter “instant illegal act”). The Defendant was indicted for the instant illegal act and was convicted and paid a fine.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the tort of this case.
2. Scope of damages.
A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the Defendant’s totaling KRW 7,961,822 (i.e., negative damages of KRW 411,822,00,000,000 for future treatment costs of KRW 1,750,000,000) as damages for tort of this case.
B. Determination 1) The fact that the Plaintiff spent KRW 411,822 in total for the treatment costs of the instant tort does not conflict between the parties. 2) The Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff had failed to operate a taxi business for 28 days due to an injury for 4 weeks and claimed KRW 2,800,000 as a non-business suspension damage for 28 days. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff failed to operate a taxi business for 28 days and the daily transport profit was KRW 100,000.
However, in light of the overall purport of arguments, such as the Plaintiff’s injury and experience, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was unable to operate a taxi for five days due to the Defendant’s assault, etc., and the data to calculate the daily transport income of the taxi engineer as above.