1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to the instant case is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s above act was “the Plaintiff’s harmful act”; (b) the Defendant’s above act was “the Defendant’s harmful act; and (c) the Plaintiff’s injury,” “the Defendant’s injury,” and “the Defendant’s injury.”

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. The plaintiff's assertion caused damages to 15,624,190 won including consolation money due to the defendant's harmful act, and the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) Since the Defendant’s harmful act constitutes a tort against the Plaintiff, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff. 2) According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff’s property damages are as follows.

① Actual income: 358,264 won (i.e., urban daily wage 89,566 won x 4 days for hospitalized treatment): 2,321,470 won (i.e., the Corporation charges borne by the Plaintiff due to a measure to recover KRW 855,440). However, the Plaintiff’s responsibility is limited to 70% in light of all the circumstances indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the background leading up to the harmful act and the degree of injury.

Property damages that the Plaintiff is liable to compensate are 1,875,813 won (=(2,321,470 won) x 0.7 and less than won).

3) The Plaintiff’s consolation money shall be set at KRW 2,00,00,00, taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the instant pleadings, including the developments leading up to the occurrence of a criminal act and the degree of injury. 3) Accordingly, the Defendant, as sought by the Plaintiff after the date of the tort, raised a dispute on the scope of the Defendant’s obligation to perform as to the Plaintiff from November 26, 2015, the following day after the delivery of the duplicate of the instant complaint, as sought by the Plaintiff.