1. The Defendants jointly share the amount of KRW 4,012,184 to Plaintiff A, KRW 1,924,019 to Plaintiff B, and each of the above amounts.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. At night on December 18, 2015, the Plaintiffs, along with F, carried out physical fighting with the Defendants, who provided meals in the said restaurant at the same time during the same time while serving in a restaurant in the name of “H” located in Ulsan-gu G (hereinafter “instant dispute”).

2) Following the instant dispute, the Plaintiff A suffered injury, such as the thring of the thmady bones, which requires approximately four weeks of treatment, and the Plaintiff B suffered injury, such as the thring of the thmadydum bones, dye, dye, dye, etc. which requires approximately three weeks of treatment.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including attachment of provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the establishment of liability for damages and the fact of recognition of the above restriction, the defendants are liable for compensation for property and mental damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the dispute of this case.

The defendants asserted that, at the time of the dispute of this case, only the defendants did not unilaterally assault the plaintiffs, but also the plaintiffs did harm by assaulting the defendants, so the defendants' responsibility should not be recognized.

However, the aforementioned circumstances asserted by the Defendants merely appear to constitute the grounds for limitation of liability of the Defendants, and it is difficult to deem that the Defendants are not liable solely on the said circumstances.

On the other hand, if an injury is caused by mutual fear of fighting, part of the victim's negligence is found, and even if the fighting is caused by the will of the perpetrator, the victim's act of attack can be the cause of offsetting negligence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 65Da1096 delivered on August 24, 1965, etc.). According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3 as well as the whole of the arguments in this case, the facts that Defendant C suffered bodily injury that requires two weeks of medical treatment, such as the right-hand hand and the right-hand hand distribution, Defendant D’s paper and paper production, and Defendant E’s paper and paper production, etc.

3.2