1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. Basic facts

A. At around 16:15 on August 16, 2016, Defendant C brought an injury to the Plaintiff, by putting the Plaintiff’s arms in two hands and sprinking the Plaintiff’s arms on the ground that the Plaintiff was disregarded without having received his own claim on the same day while Defendant C resisted the Plaintiff at a volunteer room located in Jung-gu Seoul, Seoul, and the former E-gu, Seoul, and found the Plaintiff to undergo approximately three weeks of medical treatment (hereinafter “the instant injury”).

B. On November 9, 2016, Defendant C received a summary order of KRW 1 million from the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 23954 on the crime of injury, and the said summary order was finalized on November 25, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition as above, Defendant C’s act of assaulting and injuring the Plaintiff constitutes a tort against the Plaintiff. As such, Defendant C is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by such act.

B. According to the statement in the evidence of evidence Nos. 14, 15, 18, 21 through 23 of Defendant C’s liability for damages, it is recognized that the Plaintiff spent medical expenses of KRW 772,300 due to the instant injury (i.e., F., KRW 169,00 herb drugs of KRW 111,300, KRW 24,000, KRW 168,000, and KRW 468,000).

(2) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff sustained damages of KRW 226,920 from the instant injury, KRW 450,00, and KRW 5,246,00 from the economic total investigation, and KRW 5,246,00, which the Plaintiff received. However, the said amount claimed by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as the instant injury, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(3) Defendant C is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress due to Defendant C’s injury above, and Defendant C is a monetary penalty.