1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the counterclaim defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. In full view of the respective entries and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including branch numbers), or the whole purport of the arguments, the opposing defendant was found to have suffered from the opposing defendant on his/her own hand when he/she was knee and knenee with the knee of the opposing plaintiff for about two weeks of treatment (hereinafter "the injury in this case"). The opposing defendant was found to have been sentenced to a fine of about 6 million won on December 3, 2015, and a fine of about 60 million won was suspended (hereinafter "the injury in this case"). The opposing defendant was found to have been sentenced to a fine of about 6 million won on his/her own as to the crime in related criminal cases, by plicking, plicking and plicking the left hand hand of the opposing defendant against the assault of the opposing defendant for about four weeks of treatment, and a fine of about 60 million won was suspended (the crime in this case).

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The counterclaim’s assertion of the counterclaim is against the counterclaim Defendant: (a) KRW 357,690 for the amount of damages incurred by the counterclaim due to the tort committed by the counterclaim Defendant; and (b) KRW 624,960 for the amount of damages incurred by the counterclaim; (c) KRW 44,640 for the amount of damages incurred by the counterclaim; (d) KRW 5,982,650 for the amount of damages incurred by the counterclaim; (e) KRW 5,982,650 for the amount of damages incurred by the counterclaim; (e) KRW 44,64

B. According to the above fact of recognition that the liability for damages occurred, the counterclaim Defendant is liable to compensate the counterclaim for the damages suffered by the counterclaim due to the instant injury.

However, the liability of the counterclaim defendant shall be limited to 80% in consideration of the circumstances as seen earlier, the degree of damage, etc.

C. 1) The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff against passive damages alone is insufficient to recognize the loss of labor ability and the lost income resulting therefrom, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the same. 2) The active damage king treatment cost 357,690 won (which is the ground for recognition) written in the evidence No. 1, and the argument are presented.