1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 26, 2015, between 04:42 and 04:45, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the Plaintiff, an employee, such as the right spawn, etc., which requires approximately nine weeks of medical treatment by leaving the right bridge in Gangnam-gu Seoul, as the “D club” on one floor located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C, and by going beyond the right bridge, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the right spawn, etc.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.

In relation to the instant accident, the Defendant was charged with bodily injury by robbery on the ground that the Plaintiff’s cell phone equipment “Aphone6” was removed from the Plaintiff’s front part of the back part of the instant accident and then caused injury to the Plaintiff for the purpose of evading arrest. However, in the instant case No. 2016No234, the appellate court, which was the appellate court, found the Defendant guilty only for the part of the injury on the ground that it was probable to bring about the injury to the Plaintiff due to a sudden cause without awareness about the theft of cellular phone or intent of unlawful acquisition, and the said judgment became final and

C. On January 7, 2016, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in G Hospital, and was subject to the flusium and flusium flusium flusium flusium, the first half of the same day.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is liable for damages sustained by the plaintiff due to the accident in this case as a tortfeasor who injured the plaintiff.

B. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 11, and Nos. 7-1 and 2 of the evidence Nos. 1 and 7-2, it is recognized that the Plaintiff, at the time of the instant accident, was able to find a cell phone from the Defendant, attached the back part of the Defendant’s body under the influence of alcohol even after the Plaintiff discovered the cell phone from the Defendant, and increased the punishment for the practical ditch, and the Plaintiff’s mistake was caused by the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages therefrom.

Therefore, it is reasonable to limit the defendant's liability for damages to 70%.

(b).