Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered under the following sub-paragraph (2) shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 3, 2011, the Defendant (1989) threatened the Plaintiff (1) who became aware of the “Membane”, an Internet game, with other games, with the Plaintiff’s desire to do so, and threatened the Plaintiff to “I will find the Plaintiff’s house,” with the Plaintiff’s house, the Defendant collected the Plaintiff’s house, and then sent the Plaintiff to the first floor toilet of the building in the said D apartment commercial building. On the other hand, C reported the network outside, and C reported the Plaintiff’s faces the Plaintiff’s face, knee, kne, and knee, so that the Plaintiff’s hair can be taken into consideration with the Plaintiff’s head, and the Plaintiff need to give medical treatment and give medical treatment to the Plaintiff.
B. On September 16, 201, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million from the Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 201Da11206 Decided September 16, 201 due to criminal facts, such as violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury), and the said summary order became final and conclusive as it did not request formal trial by the Defendant.
C. From July 3, 2011 to July 8, 2011, the Plaintiff spent KRW 1,014,640 as medical expenses in order to treat injuries suffered by the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry or video of Gap 1, 6 through 8 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant shall take into account all the circumstances revealed in the arguments, such as the damage 3,014,640 won [1,014,640 won £« 2,00,000 won (the circumstance and motive leading up to the assault by the defendant, the place, method and degree leading up to the assault by the defendant, the place, method and degree leading up to the assault by the defendant, the age of the defendant and the plaintiff, the age of the defendant and the plaintiff, and the
As to this, it is reasonable for the defendant to resist the existence and scope of the obligation from July 3, 201, which is the date of the tort in this case.