1. The decision of the court of first instance was rendered by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) in exchange for the principal claim at the trial.

All principal lawsuit and counterclaims shall be deemed to have been filed.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a disabled person with a second degree disability of brain disease, and the defendant operates the sales store of the disabled goods "D" in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

B. On November 21, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) aboard the hospital, dong Scooter (hereinafter “Scooter”) was involved in a traffic accident; (b) caused the front part of the Nacoo to repair it to the Defendant.

However, on the ground that the damaged level of Nadrid Scoo is difficult to repair it, the defendant received the support from the Gu office and recommended to purchase the new Nadic scoo.

C. On December 17, 2013, the Plaintiff leased 100,000 won monthly rents from the Defendant for large 589 lucoos (hereinafter “Scoos”) to pay rent of KRW 100,000 from the Defendant, and the said lucoo was destroyed in the course of operation during which the Plaintiff was going on and off until March 30, 2014. Accordingly, the Defendant sustained damages incurred to cover KRW 1,20,000.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff decided to purchase a new Nadrid scoo product from the Defendant in KRW 2,300,000, and applied for subsidies for the purchase of electric wheelchairs to the Gwanak-gu Office on February 4, 2014, and the name of the electric wheelchairs model after two weeks thereafter: KP-31 wheel chairs, but the electric wheelchairs was not actually provided to the Plaintiff.

KRW 2,060,000 of the subsidy for purchase was directly deposited into the Defendant’s account.

The remaining 240,000 won was paid to the defendant when the plaintiff returned the scooters which the plaintiff left to repair from the defendant.

The plaintiff visited the defendant's place of business to deliver Nadrid Scoo on the same day, but the defendant rejected delivery as the ordered Nadrid Scoo did not yet arrive.

E. The Plaintiff could not get any more at around April 1, 2014, and the Plaintiff went to the Defendant’s place of business with luscoo, but instead, the Defendant, instead of the Defendant, who moved to the place of business.