1. The Defendant’s KRW 161,210,714 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from October 20, 2018 to July 8, 2020.

1. Basic facts

가. 피고는 2018. 10. 20. 04:20경 서울 관악구 C 앞 노상을 지나가던 중, 마주 오던 원고와 어깨가 부딪혔다는 이유로 상호 시비가 되어, 원고의 얼굴 및 배를 주먹과 발로 수회 때리고, 휴대폰을 쥔 오른손으로 원고의 우측 눈을 1회 때렸다.

As a result, the plaintiff suffered from the injury of the inside of the friendly Gu, etc., the plaintiff was real name of the friendly Gu.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

The defendant is above A.

On August 16, 2019, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced the defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

(2019Gohap235). The Defendant appealed, and the Seoul High Court reversed the above judgment on November 15, 2019 and sentenced the Defendant to eight months of imprisonment (2019No1887), and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

C. On August 6, 2019, the Defendant deposited for repayment of KRW 10 million under the name of medical expenses, etc. for the Plaintiff. On October 25, 2019, the Defendant deposited for repayment of KRW 20 million under the same name. On January 25, 2019, the Plaintiff reserved an objection to the purport that it will receive part of the damage claim as part of the damage claim, and received each of the above repayment deposits.

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 7 and 8 (including branch numbers, if any); hereinafter the same shall apply)

(i) the entry in Category B(1) and the purport of the entire pleading

2. Occurrence of and limitation on liability for damages;

A. According to the facts of recognition as above, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as a tortfeasor who committed the accident of this case.

B. The limitation of liability: (a) in light of the motive and circumstance leading up to the instant accident (the fact that the instant accident occurred while the Plaintiff was committed while the Defendant was in sight of one another); and (b) the circumstances at the time of the instant accident (the fact that the Defendant’s fighting, when the fire was in a mouth, took the Plaintiff’s eye into a cell phone), the Plaintiff also did so.