1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. The total cost of the lawsuit after the appeal is filed.

1. At around 12:00 on February 12, 2016, the Defendant took a bath for the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Plaintiff was staying a child of the Defendant, and assaulted the Plaintiff on his/her hand to the extent that he/she met the Plaintiff’s number of times, etc., and inflicted bodily injury on the Plaintiff, which requires approximately two weeks of treatment on the part of the Plaintiff.

The defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million for the above facts constituting the crime.

(Seoul District Court 2016 High Court 2016 High Court 8583). [Reasons for recognition: the fact that no dispute exists, the entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. According to the above facts of recognition of damages liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the above illegal act.

3. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Medical expenses for affirmative damage: 535,005 won (applicable to recognition: the fact that no dispute exists, and the statement in Gap evidence 6);

B. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was suffering from enormous mental impulses due to the instant tort, and incurred considerable loss in operating a restaurant for seven months from March 1, 2016 to October 1, 2016, which was the expiration date of the store lease period. According to the written evidence No. 2 and No. 4, the Plaintiff claimed for loss in daily income for seven months, where it is difficult to calculate operating income due to the Plaintiff’s failure to report tax, the Plaintiff’s claim for loss in daily income for KRW 14,650,020 for seven months. (2) According to each of the written evidence No. 2 and No. 4, the Plaintiff operated a restaurant with the name of “D,” and the expiration date of the lease period of the said store was around October 1, 2016, but was closed on March 11, 2016.

Meanwhile, according to the evidence No. 3, the Plaintiff could recognize the fact that the Plaintiff was receiving a mental treatment from August 12, 2013 to March 2016 due to depression, anxiety, etc., and considering the fact that the Plaintiff did not have been hospitalized due to the instant tort, the Plaintiff suspended the restaurant business due to the instant tort.