beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A, KRW 6,481,250, KRW 1,566,615, and KRW 1,237,069 and each of the above amounts to the plaintiff C.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 31, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 5:25, in the Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City E-ro, and (b) completed the drinking place with Plaintiff A, his/her father, and Plaintiff B, his/her assistant, and Plaintiff C, the employee of the said main shop, and continued to work after he/she he/she completed the drinking place; (c) he/she heard the horses that Plaintiff B would am from the Plaintiff and go to the house; (d) he/she was able to see the body of the drinking house after he/she pusheded the Plaintiff B; and (e) he/she was able to take time after he/she pusheded the body of the Plaintiff A to stop it; and (e) the Plaintiff C’s face to refrain from doing so was 2 times, and turned back beyond the body of the drinking house.
As a result, the defendant suffered injury to the plaintiff A such as cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cages, old cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cages, and the plaintiff B suffered injury to the right sage cage cages
B. On October 21, 2016, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 3 million by Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 201Da10493 on the criminal facts as above, and the said order became final and conclusive.
【Reasons for Recognition: Each entry in Evidence A Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings】
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition of damages liability, since the defendant committed a tort by assaulting and injuring the plaintiffs, the defendant is liable to compensate for each damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to such tort.
B. (1) The scope of the liability for damages (1) the Defendant asserts that there is no proximate causal relation with the Defendant’s act of assaulting the costs of replacing the Plaintiff’s cocontainivity and the costs of selling the relic and selling the relic, which is KRW 924,280,00 (Evidence 6-1 to 3) of the emergency medical costs of the medical costs of the medical costs of the previous medical costs of the Plaintiff A (A), 5,040,000 (Evidence A-5 and 7). However, in light of the Defendant’s assault content and degree, the above assertion by the Defendant against the Plaintiff is asserted.