1. The Defendant’s KRW 13,251,318 as well as 5% per annum from December 27, 2013 to January 30, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts [based on recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings by the defendant, around November 1, 2012, around 19:00, the defendant injured the plaintiff by drinking at the "Dcafeteria" located in Gunsan-si C, Gunsan-si, for about four weeks of treatment, and caused injury, such as the brain thropi government's non-annual expenditure blood transfusion, non-alleys, and stropha, etc.

In the above case, the defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2 million, and the plaintiff was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million (the charges that assault the defendant at the same time and place as the above, and that the defendant was knee knee knee knebing).

Only the Plaintiff filed an application for formal trial with this Court 2013 High Court Decision 2013 High Court Decision 201Da24, on the ground that the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was injured as being the same as the facts charged, the judgment of innocence was pronounced, and the prosecutor appealed on November 29, 2013.

2. The ground for the liability for damages: The defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff as a tortfeasor who injured the plaintiff. The limitation of liability occurs between the plaintiff and the defendant as a result of the occurrence of vision and the above injury. Accordingly, the defendant's liability ratio is limited to 80%. The judgment on the claim for damages equivalent to the costs of lawsuit is alleged to the purport that the plaintiff brought an injury against the plaintiff, which caused the plaintiff to pay 9 million won as attorney's fees in the above criminal procedure. However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the facts of tort, such as the defendant's non-determination, etc., so this part of the claim is without merit. 3. The present price calculation at the time of the accident is based on the method to deduct the intermediary interest at the rate of 5/12% per month. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not separately explain.