1. The Defendant’s KRW 4,202,80 with respect to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from September 13, 2011 to April 29, 2015, and the following.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. On July 25, 201, at around 22:30 on July 25, 201, the Defendant: (a) tried to find out that the Plaintiff, who is a woman in Mapo-gu Seoul, did not refuse to open the door by putting his hand on the window; (b) placed the Plaintiff’s hand on the front part of the left part, etc. requiring medical treatment for 21 days; and (c) placed the Plaintiff’s breast part on the same day in front of the same place on the street around September 22:0, 201, for the same reason, damaged the Plaintiff’s chest part one time in front of the same place, walking the face part three times, and taking the face part into drinking, and making it possible for the Plaintiff to take treatment for 20 days.

‘A sentence of a fine of KRW 1.5 million was imposed for an offense, and finally confirmed.

(Seoul Western District Court 2012 High Court 519, Seoul Western District Court 2012No1228, Supreme Court 2013Do988). [Grounds for recognition] Gap 1, 2, 3-1 through 3, 4-1 through 3, and the purport of the whole theory of alteration

B. According to the above facts, the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for damages caused by assault and injury on July 25, 201 and September 13, 2011. 2) The Plaintiff, other than the Defendant, also committed a tort as set forth in the following subparagraphs. However, the Plaintiff’s written evidence Nos. 4, 7, and 8 are insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and this part of the assertion is rejected. (A) The Defendant, even though there was a woman who was dead for less than 20 years, was concealed, and entered into a marital relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for about 10 years. Although the Plaintiff’s family and the Defendant were actually aware of the Plaintiff’s work as the husband and the Defendant, the Defendant tried not to find the Plaintiff’s work at the Plaintiff’s workplace and the Defendant’s husband’s work, but tried not to have the Plaintiff’s husband and the wife’s work wage.) At the first time, the Defendant 1 and 10th of October 201.