1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,192,812 as well as 5% per annum from March 14, 2015 to August 27, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 26, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 18:00 on October 26, 2014, at the D restaurant located in Ansan-si, a member of Ansan-si operated by the Plaintiff, sealed the Plaintiff’s head debt one time by drinking the Plaintiff’s face; (b) knife the Plaintiff’s knife with a food knife, driving away from the Plaintiff, and then inflicted injury on the Plaintiff’s knife, such as a fnife, which requires treatment for 14 days.

(hereinafter “instant harmful act”). B.

On February 3, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for two years with prison labor for two years and three years of suspended sentence due to the instant harmful act by Ansan Branch of Suwon District Court was sentenced to imprisonment for two years and three years of suspended sentence. The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence and scope of liability for damages;

A. According to the above acknowledged facts, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the harmful act of this case.

B. According to the medical expenses evidence No. 4-1 to No. 5 of the medical expenses, according to the medical expenses set forth in the medical expenses set forth in the evidence No. 4-1 to No. 5, the Plaintiff suffered damage from the Plaintiff’s treatment conducted by E Hospital (excluding an external department) from October 26, 2014 to November 4, 2014, in total, KRW 192,812 as medical expenses, etc. Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserted that medical expenses paid after medical treatment at the mental department on March 10, 2015, March 13, 13, and the same month on the 25th day of the same month are damages caused by the instant harmful act. However, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the aforementioned mental and medical expenses and the instant harmful act were considerable in terms of the class, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it differently. 2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant’s relationship, occupation, the method and degree of damage caused by the harmful act in this case, etc.

C. According to the theory of lawsuit, the defendant 3,192.