logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.03.24 2015나34202
손해배상(기)
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiffs are married and live in the Daun-gun D Apartment, and the defendant is the chairman of the operation committee of the above D Apartment.

B. On June 27, 2014, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1,500,000 as to the facts constituting the crime of assault and bodily injury by assaulting the Plaintiff A and injuring the Plaintiff B, and the said summary order became final and conclusive around that time.

1) On September 3, 2013, around 22:17, 2013, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, assaulted the Plaintiff’s phrase “I do not give public notice of the reasons for delaying the removal of the mobile phone booms installed on the apartment rooftop” by means of cutting down the breath of Plaintiff A (hereinafter “instant assault”).

(2) At the same time, the Defendant told the Plaintiff, following the Plaintiff, who suffered from the middle school near the said D apartment, to the middle school, and the Plaintiff B, who was next to the said D apartment, told the Plaintiff.

The Defendant, on the ground that the Plaintiff B’s own arms were fluored and was fluored, sustained the Plaintiff B’s fingers during the process of fluoring Plaintiff B’s grandchildren, and suffered bodily injury, such as salt fluor, tension, etc., which requires medical treatment for about 20 days, in consideration of the Plaintiff B’s fluor, chest, etc.

(hereinafter “instant injury”). 【No dispute exists in the grounds for recognition, as described in Gap’s Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Determination 1 on the cause of Plaintiff A’s claim 1) According to the facts acknowledged as above, it is clear in light of the empirical rule that Plaintiff A suffered mental distress due to the Defendant’s act of assault in this case against Plaintiff A, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to give monetary compensation to Plaintiff A. 2).

arrow