손해배상(기)
As to the counterclaim of the first instance judgment, the Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant, which exceeds the following amount ordered to pay:
1. The plaintiff filed a claim for damages against the defendants as the principal lawsuit, and the defendant B, C, and D filed a claim for damages against the plaintiff, the designated parties'O, and P as a counterclaim. The first instance court rejected the plaintiff's counterclaim against the defendant B, C, and D, partly accepted the plaintiff's claim for damages due to the tort against the plaintiff's defendants, and partly accepted the plaintiff's claim for damages due to the tort against the defendant B, C, and D. The plaintiff appealed against the main lawsuit and the counterclaim, and the defendants did not appeal against the part against the plaintiff. Thus, the part rejecting the above counterclaim is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.
2. The reasoning of the judgment on the basic facts and the Plaintiff’s claim for the principal lawsuit is stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases, and thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The 8th judgment of the first instance is 4 to 8, and 5th judgment is as follows.
No.45, Defendant E, B, and H set aside the door of the classroom around 2013 to be prohibited from entering the classroom, and the fact that Defendant E, B, and B, around 2013, followed the following facts: “No.44, Defendant E, and H did not open the classroom,” and “from April 1, 2014 to March 26, 2014,” and “from March 26, 2014.”
3. Determination as to the counterclaim claim filed by Defendant B, C, and D
A. In full view of the following facts: (a) acknowledged evidence and evidence of the first instance court; (b) Eul’s evidence and evidence No. 2; (c) Eul’s evidence No. 5-1; and (d) the examination results and the entire purport of each party’s arguments against Defendant B by the first instance court; (c) the Defendant B and the corridor returned to the disciplinary action on May 26, 2014, stating that the Defendant B, who returned to the court of first instance, “I am dead,” and (d) the Nonparty B, who was called the Defendant B, “I am dead.”