beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 24, 2011, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million for the following criminal facts from the injury case No. 201 high-ranking 566 of the Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court) on the part of October 24, 201, and the summary order became final and conclusive on November 8, 201.
The defendant means the defendant. At around 21:30 on July 26, 201, the defendant means the plaintiff A, who was sitting in the front of the community hall located in the north north of the Republic of Korea, and who was sitting in D. The plaintiff A, who was found Eul and the plaintiff who was sitting in D. The victim's face by hand, and the victim's face was "I am am........." The defendant left the defendant's finger by hand and am off the defendant's hand, and the defendant was over the cement floor because the part of the victim's chest was pushed down. As a result, the victim suffered injury, such as chills and tensions, which require treatment for about 14 days."
B. After that, the Plaintiff was tried on the case of occupational embezzlement of 2012 high-level 83 by the Daegu District Court’s Sung-gun Branch. On February 27, 2013, this Chapter submitted to the above court an impeachment report containing the following contents (hereinafter “the impeachment report of this case”), and attached a notification of the Defendant’s claim for summary order (Evidence 6).
“8. In March 2011 (Case Number No. 1700, 201), B and A after the village conference exchange personnel with one another, and due to misunderstandings, they are tightly and well-known, and after the date of the accident, A left the arms in front of the village hall at the latest, and affixed a photograph imprint on a bridge, and then filed a complaint with B for a fine of one million won.”
C. Also, on September 16, 2013, the Daegu District Court 2013Na4188 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant application”) filed a written application jointly signed by 66 residents of Sung-gun, Sung-gun (hereinafter referred to as the “instant application”).
Since then, the plaintiff stated the above contents in the application of this case and honor of the plaintiff.