beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 7,888,362 with the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from June 15, 2016 to July 13, 2016.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition 1) Defendant C and D were the operators of the alcohol house with the trade name of “F” in the Nam-gu Seoul metropolitan area E, and Defendant B was the employees of the above alcohol house. 2) The Plaintiff issued an order to listen to the words “Isn't make an additional order from Defendant B” while drinking alcohol at the above alcohol house from August 31, 2015 to around 00:10 of the following day while drinking alcohol at the above alcohol house.
3) Although the Plaintiff ordered the Defendant B to take an order, he said that the Plaintiff did not come to go to us. Accordingly, while Defendant B had a dispute with the Plaintiff, Defendant B left to the Plaintiff with only one an empty beer, the Plaintiff was in line with this end, and the Plaintiff was in line with this end, which requires treatment for about two weeks, and the right eyebrow was in line with the purport of the entire pleadings. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the Plaintiff did not have any grounds for recognition, the entry of the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the evidence Nos. 1 through 5,
B. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, Defendant B is liable for tort, and Defendant C and D are jointly liable for employer liability and are liable for damages to the Plaintiff.
C. The Plaintiff’s limitation of liability also contributed to the occurrence and expansion of the instant damages due to the dispute with Defendant B, and thus, the Defendants’ liability is limited to 80% in determining the amount of damages.
Although the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff had been pushed ahead of Defendant B, it is not sufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s entries of No. 3-1 through No. 3 alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.
2. Calculation of damages;
A. The plaintiff asserts that the rate of lost income 1-year disability and labor ability loss was partially lost labor ability because he left a reflectr on the part of this end. Accordingly, according to the result of the physical appraisal commission with respect to each video of No. 3-1 and No. 3-2, and the head of the Joseon University Hospital of this Court, even if he received a reflectr removal operation in the future, he is on the part of this end.