beta
Text
1. Defendant B, C, and D: (a) KRW 93,953,621 to each Plaintiff; and (b) KRW 5% per annum from January 1, 2007 to November 29, 201.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition 1) Defendant B, while making a telephone conversation with the Plaintiff, who is a pet of female job-friendly F, was in front of king, was in front of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant B, C (former name: G) and D were in front of the first branch of the Japanese bank located in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on January 1, 2007, jointly with each other, around 05:00, at around 05:00, Defendant D was in front of the Plaintiff’s face. Defendant D was in front of the Plaintiff’s head and body, Defendant G was in front of the Plaintiff’s head and body, and Defendant B was in front of the Plaintiff’s body part on several occasions with the Plaintiff’s body part, which requires approximately seven weeks’s treatment (hereinafter “instant tort”).
(2) Defendant B and D were indicted for violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a deadly weapon, etc.), and the Seoul Eastern District Court sentenced Defendant B to one year and six months of imprisonment to Defendant B, and three years of suspended execution to Defendant D, respectively. Defendant B appealed therefrom, and the appellate court (Seoul Eastern District Court 2007No940) reversed the lower judgment on November 29, 2007 and sentenced Defendant B to three years of suspended execution on December 7, 2007.
3) Meanwhile, Defendant C was subject to a disposition of transmission to the Juvenile Department on the ground that it was a minor (the age of 17 years only) at the time of committing the crime. [Grounds for recognition] The facts that there is no dispute, evidence Nos. 1, 5, 8, and 14 (the number of pages is included; hereinafter the same shall apply
each entry, the purport of the whole pleading
B. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, Defendant B, C, and D are liable for all damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the tort of this case as joint tortfeasor.
C. The Defendants subject to limitation of liability did not leave Defendant B at the place where the tort of this case occurred in order to assault Defendant B first, and Defendant B also suffered bodily injury, such as fluoral salt, etc., due to assault by the Plaintiff’s fluoral behavior.