1. As to the Plaintiff A’s KRW 4,301,60, and KRW 300,000 for each of the said money and each of the said money from November 14, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. (1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant concurrently worked for the E Yangyang Central Agency, and the Plaintiff sold its used cars through the Defendant. (2) However, the issue of the purchase price for the vehicle that the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff and the mutual implementation of the transfer documents of the name of the vehicle that the Plaintiff is obligated to deliver to the Defendant, and the Defendant, around April 27, 2018, around 13:40 on the southyang-si, G commercial, located in the F in the Namyang-si, Namyang-si, the face of the Plaintiff A was 5 times, head, and drinking once on the floor of the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant assault”). (b)

Plaintiff

On the date of the instant assault, at around 15:00, the Plaintiff Company A received medical treatment in H-type surgery. A’s doctor of H-type surgery photographs with the Plaintiff, and then, X-ray photographs with the Plaintiff, but it may be doubtful that X-raying (limited to only the even amount of death) may be suspected. As such, the Plaintiff recommended the Plaintiff to conduct CT inspection. At the time of H-type surgery, the Plaintiff did not have any equipment for CT inspection. (ii) The radiation and doctor K of the former G-type Hospital conducted the CT inspection at the former G-type Hospital on the same day because there was no equipment for CT inspection in the H-type surgery. (iii) After conducting the CT inspection with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff provided diagnosis that “I did not have any opinion on the bones side of the body, including the bones body.”

Plaintiff

A After undergoing the above CT inspection, he returned to H regular surgery and sent treatment again. The doctor I notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was “unsatisfying in the CT prosecutor’s body,” and provided treatment again three days after the medical record, and recorded the medical record as “not visible to be satfy in the upper floor.”

3) On April 30, 2018, Plaintiff A received a re-medical examination from H regular surgery. A doctor again informed Plaintiff A of the result of the said CT, and recorded the medical record as “CT-T-T’s not to be included.” The Plaintiff issued a written injury diagnosis to the Plaintiff that “A requires approximately two weeks of treatment due to the Dacinology, the Dacinology, the two sides, etc.” 4) on May 23, 2018.