The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

Claim:

1. Occurrence of and restrictions on liability for damages;

A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 5 as to the occurrence of the liability for damages, the Defendant, on May 19, 2018, committed an injury to the Plaintiff, such as fluoral salt, etc., for about three weeks in need of medical treatment, on the ground that the Defendant, while holding an assembly before the entrance door of the Daegu-gu Seoul Southern-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Drup Office, was bad, he/she was faced with the face of the Plaintiff (the age of 70), on the ground that he/she was faced with the face of the Plaintiff (the age of 70), and that he/she was going beyond the Plaintiff’s bluoral with the arms.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages sustained by the plaintiff due to the above tort.

B. In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement of evidence No. 6 of the limitation of liability, there was a king, such as the king and the king, which seems to have contributed to the occurrence or expansion of the damage caused by the Defendant’s injury.

Considering these circumstances, the defendant's liability is limited to 70%.

2. Scope of damages.

A. Medical expenses: 2,356,120 - Grounds for recognition: A evidence 1-3 of evidence 1, 2, 3, 6, and 3-1 of evidence 1 - On the other hand, medical expenses of KRW 976,400 (see evidence 1-5, 7 of evidence 1) paid by the Plaintiff after the lapse of six months from the above tort, and the details of its disbursement, etc., it is difficult to recognize that there is a proximate causal relation with the above tort as medical expenses.

B. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff suffered losses of the lost income amounting to 658,914 won (=109,819 won for urban daily wage x 6 days) as the plaintiff did not conduct the business on the basis of the above tort.

- Although the Plaintiff was deemed to have received hospitalized treatment for 6 days due to the above injury, there is no evidence to prove that the maximum working age (65 years) of an ordinary father for urban day was much longer than that of the 65 years, and that there was a certain amount of income as a business for street occupation.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for lost income is a mother.