1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,977,450 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 5, 2015 to February 22, 2017, and the following.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 5, 2015, the Defendant: (a) took a bath to the Plaintiff’s back seat of the C-si cab that the Plaintiff drives in the vicinity of the C-si Dol-gu Dol-gun, Seogu Doldong-gun, and took a look at the Plaintiff’s back and right face each time under the influence of alcohol; (b) the Defendant took one-time side of the Plaintiff’s back and right side.

B. The Plaintiff stopped the vehicle on the side of the Highway at 740 meters wide from the lock area in the Gyeongdong-gun, and the Defendant took advantage of the Plaintiff’s violence, such as fluoring the Plaintiff’s face and drinking, thereby causing injury to the Plaintiff, such as the bending and closed fluoring of the bend and closed fluor for about 3 weeks of treatment, the two sides of the bend, the inner part, the inner part, and the bending part of the bending part of the 14 days of treatment.

C. The Defendant was indicted under the Daegu District Court Decision 2015Kadan1326 due to the facts stated in the above A and B B.

On January 7, 2016, the above court sentenced the defendant to 8 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution.

The prosecutor appealed against the above judgment, and the appellate court (Tgu District Court 2016No202) dismissed the prosecutor's appeal.

The above appellate judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the plaintiff as a tortfeasor who assaults the plaintiff.

B. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s fingers to enter the Defendant’s fingers in the process of disputing with the Defendant, and that the Defendant’s fingers within the Plaintiff’s fingers and damaged the Plaintiff’s objection, the Defendant also argued that the Plaintiff should limit the Plaintiff’s liability. However, the entry of the evidence No. 1-6 alone is negligent on the part of the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Defendant.