beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On February 5, 2017, the Defendant: (a) tried to deduct the Plaintiff’s church donation money owned by the Plaintiff in his/her hands from the distribution of the third floor of the Suwon Ciplomatic Association on the third floor; and (b) caused injury to the Plaintiff, such as chest, which requires approximately 14 days’ treatment, by cutting the Plaintiff out the Plaintiff’s church donation money in his/her hand, while trying to do so with the right to donate the church with the Plaintiff.
B. For the foregoing case, the Defendant was convicted of a fine of KRW 700,000 (U.S. District Court 2017 High Court 1203) and the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion states that the sum of KRW 3,078,840 for lost income during the period of hospitalization, KRW 3,474,130 for active damages, KRW 2,800 for compensation for mental damages, and KRW 3,800 for solatium 3,078,840 for lost income, KRW 3,474,130 for treatment expenses, KRW 2,800 for consolation money, KRW 9,352,970 for negative damages suffered by the Defendant’s injury, while the Plaintiff claimed KRW 9,52,970 for compensation for active damages and damages for delay.
The payment of damages for delay is sought.
B. Determination 1) The fact that the Defendant was injured by the Plaintiff is as seen earlier. As such, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred by the tort. (2) According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 3 and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the D Hospital for 30 days from February 5, 2017 to March 6, 2017, due to the fact that the Plaintiff was suffering from being hospitalized due to scarbing of scarbry at the D Hospital and the unknown scarba in detail.
However, in full view of the above evidence, the degree and part of the injury inflicted on the Plaintiff recognized by the film of the evidence No. 1, and the content of the diagnosis of injury, etc., the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is sufficient in proximate causal relation with the injury of the Defendant.