1. The Defendant’s KRW 19,852,401 as well as 5% per annum from November 30, 2013 to January 15, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a person who operates a restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name “D” in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C.

B. On November 30, 2013, at around 21:30, the Plaintiff: (a) ordered the instant restaurant to mine shots; (b) the Plaintiff was frightened in the process of bending shots to the right by shoting shots on the instant restaurant; and (c) thereby, the Plaintiff was thereby suffering from each emulculation.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On June 12, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor for a period of one year, which was sentenced to a suspended sentence of four years for a crime of injury by occupational negligence (this Court Decision 2014No8405), and appealed, but the Defendant was sentenced to the dismissal of appeal on October 6, 2015.

(This Court 2015No2326). The defendant appealed to the above judgment and is currently in progress in the final appeal.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. In light of the facts of recognition of liability and the purport of the entire pleadings, since there are many cases where the digging is bended by scooking, the Defendant operating the instant restaurant would have caused damage to the Plaintiff by neglecting his duty of care to prevent the instant accident, even though he had a duty of care to prevent the instant accident, by failing to take any safety measures.

Therefore, the defendant, who is a tort, is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident in this case.

The defendant's assertion against this is not accepted.

(c) limitation of liability, provided that circumstances recognized by the above-mentioned facts and the purport of each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 and 8 and the entire arguments, i.e., it is generally accepted that the refluor by coal shots may change over the Do;