1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the respondent in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. Around 12:30 on May 31, 2016, the Plaintiff, a driver of a D Freight Vehicle, parked in the front of the F in Busan Seo-gu, Busan, and returned to the heart. Around May 31, 2016, the Plaintiff, a driver of a D Freight Vehicle, was requested from the Defendants who run the F as well as the vice-fronors, to deduct the said freight vehicle.

B. The Plaintiff made a mixed standard that “I am off the vehicle which is not one’s own land” and “I am off the vehicle,” but Defendant B was aware that I want to do so and added a vision to the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, Defendant C, with his own vehicle, set off the Plaintiff’s front front of the said cargo vehicle, and flapsed the Plaintiff from the said cargo vehicle by putting the Plaintiff into the said cargo vehicle with the Defendant B, thereby committing assaulting the Plaintiff, such as blicking the Plaintiff’s clock and blicking the Plaintiff. As a result, the Plaintiff inflicted an injury on the clock, cryp, etc. requiring treatment for three weeks, the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat click was displayed, and the Plaintiff’s click of the cargo vehicle was also damaged.

C. The Defendants jointly inflicted an injury on the Plaintiff, and Defendant C was indicted for committing a crime that destroyed the trag and door of the truck driver’s seat, etc., and was sentenced to a fine of KRW 700,000 from the Busan District Court on January 23, 2017, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 1, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entries or images, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as stated in Gap's Evidence Nos. 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In the course of assaulting the Plaintiff and destroying the Plaintiff’s cargo vehicle, the Plaintiff’s alleged damages equivalent to KRW 400,500 due to destruction of the Plaintiff’s mobile phone, ② repair cost of KRW 70,000 due to damage to the Plaintiff’s mobile phone, ③ repair cost of KRW 53,500 due to the damage to the Plaintiff’s surface of the cargo vehicle, ④ damage equivalent to KRW 2,800,000, the value of which is the Plaintiff’s loss of the gold dog worn, and ⑤ damage of KRW 2,80,000, the Plaintiff’s treatment cost.