1. Defendant B’s KRW 1,071,590 as well as 5% per annum from March 11, 2014 to April 22, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. At around 20:00 on March 11, 2014, Defendant B: (a) laid the Defendant B’s her house located in Changwon-si, Changwon-si; (b) laid the Plaintiff’s spathn’s spathn, and laid the Plaintiff’s face, etc. on a hand, and laid the Plaintiff’s her spathn, etc. over the floor; and (c) laid the Plaintiff’s spathn, etc. over twice, the Plaintiff, such as walking the spathn part of the Plaintiff’s spathn on the ground that the spathn part of the Defendant B’s house was spathned and nick

(hereinafter referred to as "the accident of this case". (b)

Defendant B received a summary order of KRW 700,000 as a crime of injury in relation to the instant accident by this court on October 6, 2014, and the said summary order became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above fact of recognition of the liability for damages, Defendant B is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for the damages sustained by the Plaintiff in accordance with Article 750 of the Civil Act, since the accident in this case inflicted upon the Plaintiff as a result of the instant accident.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant C is jointly and severally liable with the defendant C to compensate for damages arising from the accident of this case, but there is no evidence to prove that the defendant C jointly with the defendant B caused the injury to the plaintiff. Therefore, the part of the claim against the defendant C is without merit.

3. Scope of liability for damages

A. The Plaintiff’s passive damages claim damages amounting to KRW 2,380,000 for lost daily income for 14 days for pain treatment ( KRW 170,000 per day average income of the Plaintiff x 14 days).

In addition, it is difficult to recognize the Plaintiff’s labor ability loss rate during the period of outpatient treatment as 100%, and in light of the date and time of outpatient treatment, the treatment department, and the recovery, etc., it is difficult to recognize the labor ability loss rate during the above period.

However, the fact that the plaintiff received the outpatient treatment is the reason for the consolation money.

(b) Active damage: 171,590 won No. 3.