beta
Text
1. The defendant
A. The Plaintiff A’s KRW 34,751,487 and its related KRW 5% per annum from October 29, 2018 to August 1, 2019.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 29, 2018, the defendant resided under the residence of the plaintiff A, B, and C, residing under H and I, and resisted the noise problem between the above plaintiffs. At around 15:50 on October 29, 2018, the defendant found the above plaintiffs' residence and opened a door to the entrance, and found the face of the plaintiff B that opened the door, and displayed the transition to the face of the plaintiff B several times. In order for the plaintiff to deduct the transition that the defendant cited by the defendant against the defendant, the defendant followed the latter part of the plaintiff A once.
B. Accordingly, Plaintiff B received satisfying in the emergency room of J Hospital by suffering from the heat, such as trees, face, etc. requiring medical treatment for about 15 days, and Plaintiff A hospitalized in J Hospital by suffering from the left neck (7 cm in depth, 6 cm in length) and received satisfying. Plaintiff A discharged on November 10, 2018.
C. On December 12, 2018, the Defendant was indicted for committing the crime of attempted murder against Plaintiff A and B, Daejeon District Court Decision 2018Gohap240, and was sentenced to a four-year judgment of conviction on December 12, 2018. On April 12, 2019, the Defendant’s appeal was dismissed ( Daejeon High Court Decision 2018No570) and the said sentence became final and conclusive around that time.
Plaintiff
C is the child between Plaintiff A and B, and Plaintiff D is the mother of Plaintiff B, and Plaintiff E and F are the parents of Plaintiff A.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-7 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant committed a tort committed by attempted murder against the plaintiff A and B, and thus, the defendant is liable for compensating the plaintiffs for the damages caused by such tort.
B. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the defendant should limit the defendant's liability because the plaintiffs suffered stress from the defendant's long-term noise due to the long-term story noise, but there is no clear evidence that the plaintiffs suffered excessive noise beyond the range of noise for a long time.