beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 10,094,55 with respect to the Plaintiff, and 5% per annum from April 18, 2015 to November 24, 2016.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff and F (G) of the liability for damages were all middle students.
F, on April 18, 2015, the Plaintiff f was flicked with his mind to assault the Plaintiff, and around 13:40 on April 18, 2015, the Plaintiff f was flicked with the face of the Plaintiff who flicked the Plaintiff, who flicked the Plaintiff, and flicked the Plaintiff at the bar. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was injured by the right side flick, the mouth flick, the mouth flick, and the body flick.
The defendants are parents of F.
[Grounds for recognition] According to the above facts-finding, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendants are obligated to educate the F's parents with their children.
Since F was negligent in neglecting this, the result of assaulting the plaintiff was generated, the defendants are jointly liable to compensate for the damage suffered by the plaintiff.
2. Scope of damages.
A. In light of the fact-finding report, the Plaintiff filed for payment of KRW 69,541,560 (15% of the labor capacity loss rate) based on the daily wage of an ordinary worker on the basis of the report on fact-finding of construction work wages by asserting that the aforementioned injury remains in the appearance of the Plaintiff.
In a case where a person’s post-qualification disorder caused by an illegal act causes an injury to his/her appearance, it may be deemed that he/she has lost his/her ability to work due to an injury to his/her ability to work, only when he/she has a significant degree of impact on future employment, job selection, promotion, possibility of changing his/her position, etc.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da105062, Jan. 13, 2011). In the instant case, the Plaintiff, due to F’s assault, performed an operation by leaving the upper part of the right visual part of the body, and the “scambling in the course of the operation” remains so that he/she may perform anti-scambling, and it is anticipated that he/she would have left anti-scambling even after anti-scambling (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da105062, Jan. 13, 201).