beta
Text
1. Defendant C’s KRW 3,184,530 as well as annual 5% from October 29, 2013 to November 12, 2014, respectively, to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
A. As between March 26, 2012 and March 27, 2012, Defendant B, each of the lands owned by the Plaintiff, which was kept, planted, and stored in the Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, and Gyeong-gun, 17 copies of the identification plant owned by the Plaintiff; 47 copies of the marina, 170 g of the marina, 170 g of the marina, marina, 120 g of the marina, tin, tin trees, and Dongbag trees, the Plaintiff’s assertion is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages therefrom.
B. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 3, 8, 7-3, and 6 of evidence Nos. 3, 7-3, and 6, testimony and arguments by the witness F, Defendant B is deemed to have damaged the Plaintiff’s identification portrait 5, Dongbag, 1g, and tin trees owned by the Plaintiff, which were stored, planted, and planted on each land around 2012, but the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that Defendant B destroyed the same goods as claimed by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Furthermore, as to the amount of damage suffered by the Plaintiff as a result of the damage of Defendant B’s above-mentioned 5 copies, 1glux, 1glux, and 1glux, the health class, while the Plaintiff asserted that the market price of the above 1glux 3.8 million won at the above 3.8 million won at the above 1stlux 1, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The statement in Gap evidence No. 8 alone lacks to specify the market price of the above 1glux and
Ultimately, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
2. According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments as to the claim against Defendant C, the judgment on the claim against the Defendant C, as indicated in the evidence Nos. 4, 5, 9, and 7-1, 2, and 5, Defendant C is recognized to have inflicted an injury on the left-hand side of the Plaintiff, which requires approximately three weeks of medical treatment on March 25, 2012 due to the Plaintiff’s head debt 09:45, and skeing the Plaintiff’s head debt.
Therefore, Defendant C is therefore the Plaintiff.