2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. At around 10:20 on March 29, 2015, the Defendant: (a) caused injury to the brain bed, such as brain bed, which requires treatment between approximately two weeks by making the Plaintiff’s back water one time, by inserting a insertion in which the issue of planting the Plaintiff’s cultivated goods, etc. on the Plaintiff’s land was raised ( approximately 60cm in length).

B. As above, the Plaintiff cited a blusium, which was a dispute over the issue of cultivating the Defendant and the land, and affixed the Defendant’s damages, etc. one time and affixed the Defendant’s blusium, etc., with the Defendant’s head and blusium, etc., and put the Defendant under the blus blus blus, etc. that require treatment for up to seven days, when she puts the Defendant

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant were indicted on each of the above criminal facts.

On April 15, 2016, the District Court convicted the Plaintiff and the Defendant of all the above criminal facts, and sentenced the Defendant to a suspended sentence of two years in October, and a fine of seven hundred thousand won in the case of the Plaintiff.

(J) The above judgment became final and conclusive on November 11, 2016, as it became final and conclusive on April 15, 2016.

On the other hand, on March 28, 2015, the Plaintiff destroyed a public notice line owned by the Defendant, and the amount of damages therefrom is KRW 3,000.

(5th day of pleading in the court of first instance). 【Evidence No. 4 of the Grounds for Recognition】 No. 8, No. 9 of the Grounds for Recognition, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is liable for damages incurred by the injury of March 29, 2015, and the plaintiff can be found to have committed each tort due to the injury of March 28, 2015, the damage of March 28, 2015, and the injury of March 29, 2015.

B. Meanwhile, the Defendant asserted that “the Plaintiff damaged the Defendant’s reputation on March 29, 2015,” but the video of the evidence No. 16 alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff damaged the Defendant’s reputation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

3. Scope of liability for damages

(a) the court of first instance;