1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled and taken.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The defendant, around 22:00 on December 30, 2009, was in the road in the Mana-Eup, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, and completed a meeting and was under the influence of alcohol and was in the booming of his son's military flag after the company under the influence of alcohol.

The plaintiff prevented the above act of the defendant, and followed the defendant, and the defendant suffered injury, such as the fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral bluoral bluoral fluoral bluoral bluoral bluor, which requires the plaintiff's treatment for about 30 days, and the fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral

(hereinafter “instant injury”) . [Grounds for recognition] Nos. 4 and the purport of the entire pleadings

B. The defendant is responsible for compensating the plaintiff for damages caused by the injury of this case.

2. Scope of damages.

A. 1) Positive damages 1) The medical expenses for the future dental services are KRW 18 million. 2) The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit, inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge the medical expenses for the determination.

(b) Considerational reasons: The developments of the instant case, the degree of injury of the Plaintiff, and all other circumstances revealed in the pleadings: 3,00,000 won; and

C. The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from August 22, 2010 to November 10, 2016, which is the date when the Defendant rendered a judgment at the court of first instance, and the rate of 20% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed without merit. Since the part against the defendant who ordered payment in excess of the above recognized amount among the judgment of the court of first instance that partially different conclusions is unfair, the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed, and the defendant's remaining appeal is groundless.