beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) against Plaintiff A, KRW 7,226,307; and (b) KRW 500,000; and (c) against each of the said money, from December 5, 2016 to December 5, 2018.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. At around 19:20 on December 5, 2016, the Defendant assaulted the Plaintiff’s head debt and the Defendant’s head debt to see the husband who was born no later than 1 month prior to the Daejeon Jung-gu, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff her drinking alcohol and found the above female house, and (b) the Plaintiff her answer the husband who was born no more than 1 month prior to the 1 month period; (c) but, on the ground that the Plaintiff her answer the Plaintiff A’s head debt, the Defendant was able to see the Plaintiff’s head debt and her face by hand and her face by hand.
Accordingly, the plaintiff A suffered from the injury of the two straws, etc.
(hereinafter “instant tort”). (b)
A summary order of KRW 1 million was issued to the defendant for committing a crime of this case and became final and conclusive.
C. Plaintiff B is Plaintiff A’s children.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry and video of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the tort of this case.
B. However, according to each of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 1 to 4, at the time, the body fighting began by the plaintiff A, who had raised the meaning of the defendant's obsescy in response to this, and the defendant's head, and the plaintiff A was also in opposition to the defendant's assault and caused the defendant's multiple head, debt and scambling, and scambling with the defendant. Thus, the defendant's liability ratio is limited to 70% in consideration of the error and overall circumstances of the plaintiff A.
[Plaintiff A denied the fact of assault against the Defendant at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation (Evidence A 12). However, the above statement is difficult to believe in light of the respective descriptions set forth in Evidence A No. 8 and 9.