1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff, which orders additional payment, shall be revoked.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement No. 1, No. 2-3, and No. 6, the defendant, around December 23, 2013, based on the following facts: (a) around 22:10 on December 23, 2013, acknowledged that the defendant inflicted injury on the plaintiff's head head head part of the plaintiff who completed a substitute driving on the front of the dong heren apartment at large city, about 10 times on December 23, 2013; and (b) about 8 times on the backhead part of the backhead part of the plaintiff, about 10 times on August 23, 2013; (c) on CCTV installed in the above apartment, the above head part was not taken, or the above part was not taken on the CCTV installed in the above apartment; and (d) there is no other counter-proof evidence.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages sustained by the plaintiff due to the above injury.

2. Scope of liability for damages

A. According to the evidence No. 3, the Plaintiff’s disbursement of KRW 121,150 (10,000 for the issuance of a medical certificate of early medical treatment KRW 21,150) for the medical expenses of the instant injury can be acknowledged.

(1) The plaintiff argues that the plaintiff paid KRW 2.5 million to the medical expenses of the injury of this case, but the written diagnosis of the injury of the plaintiff does not require hospitalization. Thus, the remaining medical expenses except for KRW 121,150 recognized above are voluntarily hospitalized by the plaintiff, and it is difficult to view that there is a proximate causal relation with the injury of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is rejected

Although the Plaintiff asserts that the lost income should be compensated for KRW 1,831,515 for the lost income during the hospitalization period, in light of the fact that the written diagnosis of injury against the Plaintiff states that the hospitalization is unnecessary, it is difficult to deem that there exists a proximate causal relation with the injury of this case. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

C. The consolation money shall be KRW 1,500,000 in full view of all the circumstances, including the background leading up to the Plaintiff’s bodily injury and the parts and degree of the Plaintiff’s bodily injury.