1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff ordering payment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall make the plaintiff 1,374.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. On March 27, 2014, around 17:40 on March 27, 2014, the Defendant: (a) in his/her hands at the Seo-gu Incheon Seo-gu Apartment Management Office, when he/she saw the Plaintiff’s her head, her head, her head, and dub

As a result, the Plaintiff was in 21 days of 21 days of scambling, scambling, scambling and salt scambling, scambling and heart scambing, and scambing and scambing in the face.

(hereinafter "the injury of this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence 1, 5, and Eul evidence 1

B. The defendant is responsible for compensating the plaintiff for damages caused by the injury of this case.

2. Scope of damages.

A. From March 28, 2014 to August 22, 2014, the Plaintiff spent 696,939 won of medical expenses (D 70,239 won and 140,000 won E Han-won 82,700 won and 234,000 won of Contaccck (cock removal)) from March 28, 2014.

B) From February 21, 2014, the transfer date of the instant injury, the Plaintiff was receiving medical treatment from the department of mental health in the hospital in the small-scale hospital from February 21, 2014 to October 7, 2014. [Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 2, Evidence Nos. 1, 5, 11, 12, 18, 19, and 20 of the evidence Nos. 7-1, 7-1, 12, 18, 19, and 19, and the purport of the entire pleadings as the whole), the medical treatment costs in connection with the instant injury are KRW 696,939. (b) It is insufficient to recognize that the purchase cost of the medical treatment in the small-scale hospital in the form of mental health department in the small-scale hospital and the medicine expenses related thereto had a causal relationship with the instant injury, and there is no other evidence to

(b) Considerational reasons: The developments of the instant case, degree of injury of the Plaintiff, and overall circumstances revealed in the pleadings: 1,500,000 won; and

C. From March 27, 2014, the Defendant’s defense over the existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligation is significant in regard to KRW 2,196,939 (the treatment cost of KRW 696,939 and KRW 1,500,00) and KRW 82,939 cited by the first instance court.