1. The Defendant’s KRW 31,337,321 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from November 21, 2015 to November 28, 2017.

1. Establishment of liability for damages;

(a) The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between the Parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of the pleadings:

(1) Around 00:30 on November 21, 2015, the Defendant, at the Plaintiff’s house located in Daegu Seo-gu, opened an open space where the Plaintiff was to receive approximately two weeks of treatment on the Plaintiff’s card, on the ground that the Defendant, when the Defendant putting alcohol into the Plaintiff’s card, it called “a card of the Plaintiff, and the court of first instance,” and on the ground that the Plaintiff paid a fake card, it called “the Plaintiff’s card,” and opened the open space where the Plaintiff was to receive approximately two weeks of treatment.

(2) On April 7, 2016, the Defendant was convicted of a suspended sentence of two years, etc. on the ground that the instant accident was committed by the Seogu District Court Branch of the Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court Branch of 2016Kadan80) and was sentenced to a judgment of conviction on the ground that the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years, etc.

The above judgment became final and conclusive on April 15, 2016.

B. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, since the defendant committed a tort causing injury to the plaintiff, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the plaintiff.

C. The defendant asserts that the defendant's liability should be limited to 50% on the ground that the tort of this case occurred when both the plaintiff and the defendant both before the game of this case are engaged in drinking and drinking again in drinking in the restaurant of the defendant's mother-friendly, and that the defendant's liability should be limited to 50% on the ground that the plaintiff's wind to drink while driving the game of this case without any justifiable reason.

However, since the defendant is liable for damages due to intentional tort of this case, there is no room for offsetting negligence or limiting liability, and in light of the circumstances of the tort of this case, the defendant is liable for damages.