logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원포항지원 2015.10.20 2015가단300484
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 8,832,539 as well as 5% per annum from February 2, 2014 to October 20, 2015, and the next day.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. At around 22:30 on February 1, 2014, the Defendant: (a) heard the Plaintiff’s expression “D” from the Plaintiff within the “D” located in the north-gu, Mapo-gu, Mapo-si; (b) “Iskhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

(3) The Defendant was indicted of assault and bodily injury by committing the instant crime, and the Mag-gu District Court Branch Branch rendered a judgment ordering probation and community service for 160 hours by committing the instant crime against the Defendant on September 19, 2014 (hereinafter “instant crime”). On September 19, 2014, the Defendant was punished by assault and bodily injury, and the Mag-gu District Court Branch Branch rendered a judgment ordering probation and community service for 160 hours. On September 1, 2015, the Defendant appealed on September 1, 2015 (20), but the Daegu District Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s appeal (2014No3620).

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the crime of this case.

Although the defendant asserts that the crime of this case constitutes self-defense, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted since there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

2. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Medical expenses: 3,832,539 won;

B. Consideration 1) Reasons for consolation money: The amount recognized as follows: The plaintiff's age, occupation, background leading to this case, part of injury, and degree of injury: 5,00,000 won (which are shown in the argument of this case). The evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence No. 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings are different.

arrow