beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment against the Defendants exceeding the money ordered to be paid below is revoked.
Reasons
According to the facts that there is no dispute over liability for damages, and according to the overall purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the plaintiff and the defendants committed a dispute at the Busan Shipping Daegu D around October 21, 2017, and E main points, the defendants abused the plaintiff and inflicted an injury on the plaintiff, such as a pelle, etc. at the bottom of the frame necessary for treatment for about six weeks (hereinafter referred to as "unlawful act in this case"), and the facts that the defendants were sentenced to a fine for negligence at the Busan District Court's Dong branch branch on April 5, 2018, and confirmed at that time (2018DaMa6666) are significant in the court.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants are jointly liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the tort of this case.
According to the records in Gap evidence No. 3, the plaintiff paid medical expenses of KRW 873,400 from October 21, 2017 to November 6, 2017. Thus, the defendants are jointly liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages equivalent to the above medical expenses.
The daily income: The plaintiff alleged that he did not work for 43 days due to the instant accident and sought payment of the daily income amounting to 4,310,376 (i.e., 102,628 won of an ordinary urban person's daily wage x 42 days). However, the plaintiff merely received hospital treatment for about two months due to the instant injury and did not have hospitalized in the hospital. The above amount does not have a proximate causal relation with the instant tort. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
Liability limitation: Plaintiff appears to have been placed on the Defendants before the dispute, and the above act of the Plaintiff appears to have contributed to the occurrence or expansion of the injury of this case, so the Defendants’ responsibility is limited to 90%.
In full view of the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, the background and degree of the instant case, the injury of the Plaintiff, and all other circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case, 3,00.