beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. Facts 1) The Defendant is a person who operates a Dsports Center in Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-si. 2) On July 4, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 13:00, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s purchase of the D Sports Center in front of the F station located in Heung-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu; (b) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s purchase of the F station in front of the F station located in Heung-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu; and (c) during the dispute, the Plaintiff’
(3) On January 22, 2016, the Defendant was notified of a summary order of KRW 700,000 due to the instant harmful act, which was committed by Cheongju District Court 2015 Goju District Court 7016, Jan. 22, 2016. The above summary order became final and conclusive because the Defendant did not request formal trial. [The facts that there was no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the loss incurred by the harmful act of this case.
2. Scope of damages.
A. In the assertion that the Plaintiff was unable to perform a work for a period of four months by suffering from injury due to the instant harmful act, the Plaintiff sought KRW 10,000,000 from the lost profit for four months. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, the Plaintiff’s allegation in this part is without merit.
B. According to the evidence evidence evidence Nos. 5 and 6, the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 103,100 from G department from January 22, 2016 to July 1, 2016, and KRW 524,220 from H hospital on June 13, 2016 is recognized, but the above amount of expenditure is paid only after the lapse of six months from the time of the harmful act in this case. The above amount of expenditure is not submitted, so it is difficult to find relevance with the harmful act in this case. The Plaintiff did not submit evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff spent medical expenses for about six months from the date of the harmful act in this case.