1. The Defendant’s KRW 13,402,160 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from September 16, 2016 to June 8, 2018.

Facts of recognition

At around 08:20 on September 16, 2016, the Plaintiff, who was working as a driver of Gyeongnamco Services Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Gyeongbukcoco services"), thought that the Defendant, a driver belonging to the same company, was informed of the fact that the Plaintiff performed a campaign for the abortion of a candidate who was going to the election of the president of the cooperative, in the bus platform in Seo-gu, Daegu-gu, Seogu, Daegu-gu, 295, that he performed a campaign for the defeat of the candidate who was going to the president of the cooperative, and caused the Defendant’s injury, such as salt, tension, etc., to the Defendant for approximately two weeks of treatment.

In response to the above violence of the plaintiff, the defendant suffered bodily injury, such as the balone of heavy aggregates, which requires treatment for about six weeks since the plaintiff's head and loss was cut down by his/her hand by setting up against the plaintiff's violence.

(hereinafter hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). On November 15, 2016, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 3 million (Seoul District Court Branch Decision 2016 High Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 7530), and on November 29, 2017, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a fine of KRW 500,000 (Seoul District Court Branch Decision 2016 High Court Decision 1039). The above summary order and judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] According to the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5 through 9, and 13 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the facts of recognition as the basis for the liability for damages arising from the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by such tort, since he suffered injury upon the plaintiff at the time of the plaintiff.

However, the limitation of liability is limited, not by unilateral assault, but by the plaintiff's injury caused by the accident of this case, and the defendant was assaulted by the plaintiff, taking into account all the circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, including the background and progress of the accident of this case, the degree of harmful act, and the degree and degree of the injury caused thereby.