1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1,348,020 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 25, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the statements in Gap evidence 7 and Eul evidence 1, the following facts are recognized:

On June 22, 2015, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to pay the money from the Plaintiff’s home located in Suwon-si around 5:30, 2015, and paid the money to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant was in his/her own favor.

Accordingly, in order to capture the defects of the Plaintiff’s sound recording as a studio, the Plaintiff plucked, plucked, plucked, plucked, 3 to 4 times the Plaintiff’s right shoulder by drinking, extracted telephone lines to prevent the Plaintiff from making a report to the home phone, thereby causing injury to the Plaintiff, such as salt pans, etc., of the part that requires approximately three weeks of medical treatment.

(hereinafter “instant tort”). (b)

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the tort of this case.

2. Scope of liability for damages

A. There is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff spent a total of KRW 348,020 in treatment costs and transportation costs in order to receive treatment for the injury suffered by the instant tort, such as treatment costs.

In addition to the plaintiff, the defendant claims that the plaintiff damaged the plaintiff's recorder and the value of the tape is 69,580 won. However, since there is no evidence to prove that the defendant damaged the plaintiff's tape, this part of

B. On June 22, 2015, the Plaintiff asserts that he/she was unable to conduct the operation even if he/she was able to conduct the operation for approximately 20 days during the period from June 22, 2015 to September 1, 2015, and that the average daily income was KRW 336,847, and thus, the Plaintiff suffered losses due to the instant tort (=20 days x 336,847).

However, the Plaintiff had been 66 years old at the time of the instant non-violationing act, and the maximum working age was over, and according to the evidence No. 2, the Plaintiff did not perform spring work in 2015.