beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 6,736,320 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from July 5, 2014 to July 8, 2015, and July 9, 2015.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3 as a whole, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the tort, since around 03:00 on July 5, 2014, the Defendant 1 was engaged in the Plaintiff’s flabing, clock at the parking lot of Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu Seoul, Seoul, in which the 2nd floor of the Plaintiff’s cellular phone was taken in a scam, the head was taken in a scam, the head was taken in a scam, the head was taken in a scam and drinking, the head was pushed in a scam, the head was pushed in, and the head was taken in a scam, and the head was taken in a scam for about 14 days. The Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the tort.
2. Scope of liability for damages
A. In full view of each of the statements in Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 8, Gap evidence 9, and Gap evidence 10, it can be acknowledged that the market price of the above telephone at the time of the above tort was 50,000 won, and that the plaintiff paid 236,320 won due to the above injury. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 736,320 won ( = 500,00 won).
B. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff did not work for one month due to the above illegal act, and that at the time the Plaintiff’s monthly pay was KRW 1,700,000, and sought compensation equivalent to the above amount of damages to the Defendant.
In light of the following facts: (a) there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff suffered a loss equivalent to monthly salary due to the above tort; (b) rather, according to the evidence of evidence No. 1, evidence No. 4, evidence No. 5, evidence No. 6, evidence No. 9, evidence No. 11, evidence No. 12, evidence No. 11, and evidence No. 12, evidence No. 1, and evidence No. 12, evidence No. 1, 2000, and evidence No. 1211, Dec. 7, 2014; (c) the Plaintiff was discharged from the hospital at work on July 10, 2014, which was the basis of the above tort; and (d) the Plaintiff received benefits of KRW 1,70,000 from the above hospital