logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.06.11 2014가합2538
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 5,580,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from November 14, 2013 to June 11, 2015.

Reasons

1. Around 02:30 on November 14, 2013, the Plaintiff and Nonparty C claimed the Defendant as the scrapping ground located in Ulsanbuk-gu, Ulsan-gu, U.S., and sought the Defendant’s face. When the Plaintiff and C jointly agreed with the Plaintiff and C, the Plaintiff suffered a multi-closion, diagnosis, and open upper part of the gar, etc. requiring multiple treatment between approximately three weeks. When the Plaintiff’s face and breasts are taken as drinking, the Defendant suffered injury, such as finger, shouldering the gar of the bend, and the ambathing part of the bend, which require treatment between approximately 30 days, by taking the Plaintiff’s face and breasts into drinking.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 3, 6 evidence, Eul's 1 (including additional numbers), Eul's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. According to the above fact of recognition of the liability for damages, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages caused by the tort, since he/she inflicted assault and harming the plaintiff.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserted that he was assaulted by the Defendant on October 13, 2013, in addition to the aforementioned illegal acts, but it is insufficient to recognize the fact of assault by the Plaintiff’s assertion by witness F and C only with testimony of witness F and C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on assault on October 13, 2013 is rejected.

B. The scope of liability for damages: (a) the Plaintiff was asserting that, due to the Defendant’s assault, the Plaintiff was unable to sell as a beneficiary and sing out, thereby making profits. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the occurrence of such damages; and (b) there is no other evidence to acknowledge the occurrence of such damages.

② Although the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant spent 3.1 million won for medical expenses incurred by the Defendant’s assault, there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

On the other hand, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence No. 6 and the argument of the defendant, the defendant's treatment of the plaintiff's pelpelle and the plaintiff's pelpelle due to the violence committed on November 14, 2013.

arrow