1. Upon the Plaintiff’s request added at the trial court, Defendant C, as well as KRW 716,528, on May 23, 2015, to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 2, 2015, Defendant B assaulted the Plaintiff, including the Plaintiff’s chest, on the front corridor No. 111-dong 1104, Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu, Seongdong-gu, 1104, the Plaintiff found and the Plaintiff’s husband and the above Defendant were suspected of resistant relation, and requested death.

B. Defendant C was the children of Defendant B, and arrived at the above place after receiving Defendant B’s telephone at the time, and brought the Plaintiff’s arms to the corridor to board the elevator, and brought the Plaintiff’s arms to the upper floor to the lower floor by continuously getting off the elevator through emergency stairs, and put the Plaintiff into the lower floor, which led the Plaintiff to assaulting the Plaintiff for approximately eight weeks of treatment.

C. In a criminal trial (Seoul Eastern District Court 2016 High Court 2016 High Court 143), the court on July 13, 2016, the defendant B above.

As to the act of this paragraph, a fine of 500,000 won shall be imposed against Defendant C for the crime of assault.

A judgment of conviction of a fine of KRW 2,00,00 as to the act of a claim was rendered, and the Defendants appealed against the above judgment, but the appellate court (Seoul Eastern District Court 2016No1113) rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on September 26, 2016 on the ground that the Defendants did not submit the grounds for appeal within the period of September 26, 2016, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 5, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the facts of recognition, Defendant B is entitled to the above 1. A.

due to the tort, such as the above paragraph 1.B.

The plaintiff is liable for each damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the illegal acts such as Paragraph 1.

B. Meanwhile, Defendant C asserted that “the Plaintiff’s act constitutes a justifiable act as an act of arrest of a flagrant offender, or limited liability of Defendant C by taking into account the above circumstances, on the other hand, because it was the starting point of the instant case where the Plaintiff’s act of finding and leaving the Defendant B was committed.” However, at the time, the Plaintiff was at the time.