A. On November 10, 2012, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was suffering from an accident that was caused by an infant while drinking C, which was imported and sold by the Plaintiff, and sought payment of medical expenses and consolation money, etc., but the Plaintiff denied the Defendant’s assertion, and accordingly, sought confirmation that there was no liability for damages against the Defendant due to the said accident as the principal lawsuit.

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) On February 20, 2012, the Defendant purchased C 1 gamblings from the Plaintiff and on November 10, 2012, the said C (hereinafter “instant C”).

2) The first part of the first part of the right of drinking music (hereinafter referred to as “instant young children”).

)an accident that happens (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”)

2) On December 13, 2012, the Defendant sought to leave the dental hospital and explained the circumstances of the instant accident to the competent doctor on December 13, 2012, and the doctor in charge conducted a diagnosis that the instant dentalian was forced to leave the hospital in a vertical line through a prosecutor, and then the doctor in charge conducted the instant dental examination.

3) Afterwards, the Defendant was in the Seoul Dental Hospital with the process of planting the egg on the part of its origin. 4) The Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages, such as the king treatment cost 4,389,680 won, future treatment cost 11,009,893 won, consolation money 11,009,89,893 won, etc., which was suffered by the Defendant, the consumer due to the lack of safety in the pertinent product as the manufacturer and seller of C of this case. Thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff as a counterclaim for the aforementioned monetary amount and damages for its delay.

2. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the absence of a monetary obligation, where a debtor claims to deny the facts causing the occurrence of an obligation by specifying the claim, the creditor bears the burden of assertion and proof as to the facts requiring a legal relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259, Mar. 13, 1998), and the degree of proof is a judge as to the facts requiring proof.