logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원평택지원 2016.10.07 2015가단5595
불법행위및사용자책임으로인한손해배상금
Text

1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 2,00,000 with respect to the Plaintiff and the period from July 2, 2015 to October 7, 2016.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 1, 2011, the Plaintiff joined AMTex Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) and worked in Defendant C by June 28, 2013, and Defendant B was the Plaintiff’s workplace.

B. At around 16:00 on May 14, 2012, Defendant B: (a) demanded the Plaintiff to revise the part receipt log at the 6th floor E office of the Seo-gu Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government D Building on the ground that the Plaintiff was able to take part; (b) committed assaulting the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was able to take part in the Plaintiff’s left hand; and (c) caused the Plaintiff’s injury requiring two-time medical treatment, such as snow on the left side, eye, damage, etc.

(hereinafter “the instant assault”). 【The ground for recognition】 【The fact that there is no dispute between the parties, entry of evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.”

2. According to the above facts of determination, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff suffered mental suffering due to the assault of this case. As such, Defendant B is a tort, and the defendant company is jointly and severally obligated to do so to the plaintiff in money. Considering the developments and degree of the assault of this case and the circumstances after the assault of this case, etc., the amount of consolation money shall be determined at KRW 2,00,000,000, considering all the circumstances revealed in the records and arguments of this case.

Therefore, the Defendants jointly have a duty to jointly pay to the Plaintiff 2,00,000 won and damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from July 2, 2015, the following day after the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendants to dispute on the existence and scope of the performance obligation, as requested by the Plaintiff, until October 7, 2016, and from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. In conclusion, each of the instant claims against the Defendants against the Plaintiff is recognized respectively.

arrow