1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the appeal by the defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 4, 2013, the Defendant committed violence (hereinafter “instant violence”) against the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Plaintiff filed a civil petition related to the installation of waterworks and paid a large volume of sound at the Myeon Office of the Gosong-gun, Changbuk-gun, Seoul, 2013.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered from a scarcity scarcity in need of treatment for approximately two weeks.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of and limitation on liability for damages;

A. According to the above fact of recognition of the liability for damages, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the act of violence in this case, unless there are special circumstances.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that there is no causation between the violence in this case and the injury suffered by the plaintiff, but the fact that the plaintiff suffered from a scarke scarke scarke in need of treatment for about two weeks due to the act of violence in this case is as seen earlier, and there is no other counter-proof.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The limitation of liability arises from the Defendant’s warning that the act of violence in this case was committed by the Plaintiff, such as large noise, etc., and the Plaintiff also caused the Defendant to have attempted to commit the act of violence in this case, such as the Plaintiff’s warning that “the Defendant would know what he would know,” and there are circumstances to deem that the Defendant committed the act of violence in this case, etc., by comprehensively taking into account the developments leading up to the occurrence of the act of violence in this case and the contents thereof, etc., the Defendant’s liability

3. Scope of liability for damages

A. According to the statement in Gap evidence 3-1 through 6, the plaintiff spent 46,175 won after receiving the hospitalized treatment at an infertility hospital located in the father-gun of the former North Korea from March 4, 2013 to March 7, 2013. On March 11, 2013, the plaintiff received 142,750 won after receiving the treatment at the same hospital on March 11, 2013.