1. On October 23, 2014, the Defendant: (a) against Plaintiff A KRW 4,882,700, Plaintiff B, C, and D each of the above amounts; and (b) against each of the above amounts.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant, on June 11, 2013, in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, the head of the plaintiff A was removed from the living room floor on the part of Bupyeong-gu in Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, and then the head of the plaintiff A was taken off and faceed from drinking outside the gate, and that the defendant was injured the plaintiff A by taking head in the gate again and taking head in the gate.

B. According to the evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 2-2, and 1-1 and 2-2 of the evidence Nos. 1-1, 1-2 of the judgment, the defendant, around June 11, 2013, at Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Bupyeong-gu around 16:35, that the defendant, who was in a de facto marital relationship with him/her, and the plaintiff A, heard that he/she would take a bath to each other as a matter of gambling funds and would not take a bath to the above plaintiff. However, the defendant, who continued to take a bath over the living room floor of the above plaintiff, may recognize the fact that the defendant sustained injury to the victim, such as multi-lodyal salt, etc. requiring medical treatment for about 21 days, by putting the head of the above plaintiff.

In addition, in light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to acknowledge the above facts solely on the written statements in Gap evidence 14-1 through 7, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above facts in light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the written statements in Eul evidence 1-3 through 18, Eul evidence 2, and 3, when the defendant moved the plaintiff Eul into his ward floor, knife the head outside the gate, knife the face outside the gate, knife the head, knife the head outside the gate, and knife the head in the gate.

① Although the Plaintiff asserted that he suffered damage as alleged above at the investigative agency, the investigative agency stated that the witness at the time was present and that the Plaintiff’s statement [in the on-site visit report (No. 1-9 of the evidence No. 1-9 of the above), the Plaintiff stated that “the Defendant and G was damaged by breaking his headal scams into the ground in which he was scambling.””” etc.