1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The judgment on the cause of the claim was around 13:00 on December 18, 2017 by the Defendant’s house located in the Defendant’s household located in the Dapo-gun for approximately three weeks, causing injury to the Plaintiff, such as salt, tensions, etc. requiring treatment at the Plaintiff’s face once. At the time, the Plaintiff was shocked into the 2nd unit of the upper left-hand side, due to the Defendant’s assault, and the Plaintiff was forced due to the above Defendant’s assault, and the fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 193,100 as well as dental treatment expenses, and KRW 563,30 as a result of dental treatment expenses, is not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by each entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, 8, 11, and 12.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant inflicted damages equivalent to the above medical expenses on the plaintiff due to the above tort, but it is recognized that the plaintiff had had a significant impact on the plaintiff's king in relation to the strike of dental children, so the amount of the property damage that the defendant is liable to compensate for to the plaintiff shall be recognized as the sum of 362,090 won, including 193,100 won in prison and dental treatment expenses and 168,990 won in dental treatment expenses.

On the other hand, the consolation money that the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff shall be 300,000 won by taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the records, including the course of and before the tort.

In addition, the Plaintiff alleged to the effect that the amount of KRW 1,80,000,00 from the suspension of the party room business for three weeks should be included in the scope of compensation for damages. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was in suspension of the party room business due to the above tort committed by the Defendant.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

Therefore, the Defendant’s damages amounting to KRW 662,090 (i.e., KRW 362,090,000) and the Defendant’s appeal as to the existence or scope of the Defendant’s performance obligation from June 22, 2018, which is the date of the first instance judgment, which is appropriate for the Defendant to dispute as to the existence or scope of the performance obligation, from June 22, 2018, and the following.