beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the evidence Nos. 3 and 2 evidence, the Defendant suffered injury to salt ties and tensions, such as chills, which need to be treated for about three weeks, on July 4, 201, on the part of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff who followed the Plaintiff and had the Plaintiff, who tried to avoid it, go beyond the table table of the conference, and thereby, caused the Plaintiff to suffer injury (hereinafter “the instant injury”).
Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the injury of this case as a tort.
B. It is reasonable to limit the Defendant’s liability for property damage to 80% in light of the fact that the Defendant sustained injury to the Plaintiff at the end of the trial cost between the original Defendant and the Defendant.
2. Scope of liability for damages
A. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 2 and 8, including medical expenses, the Plaintiff spent the sum of KRW 1,950,150 (the sum of KRW 1,850,150 for medical expenses) due to the instant injury, etc.
(1) The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff paid KRW 175,00 as the oriental medicine treatment cost, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's above assertion only with Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 11.
The plaintiff was paid KRW 80,000 per month while working as a restaurant employee around the day of the above illegal act. However, the plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff suffered a loss equivalent to KRW 3.2 million ( KRW 800,000 x 4 months) as he did not work for four months due to the injury of this case. However, in light of the result of the fact inquiry about C by the court of first instance, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's allegation by itself, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
However, in full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 3, the plaintiff can be found to have been hospitalized for 16 days from July 5, 201 to 20th of the same month as the injury in this case.