1. The appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the incidental appeal by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff), C, and Defendant D were expanded in the trial.

1. Scope of adjudication of this court;

A. In relation to the principal lawsuit, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 12,456,420, respectively, against the Defendants at the first instance court (i.e., medical expenses of KRW 2,456,420, respectively).

In relation to the claim for medical expenses, the court of first instance ordered the defendant C and the defendant C to pay KRW 2 million each to the defendant B and the defendant D, and one million each to the defendant C in relation to the claim for consolation money.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against Defendant B, among the claims in the principal lawsuit, in addition to KRW 6 million (i.e., KRW 5,355,234 out of KRW 64,766 of the treatment expenses), and KRW 5 million against Defendant C (i.e., KRW 3,83,112 of the treatment expenses) (i.e., KRW 1,166,88 of the treatment expenses), and KRW 5 million against Defendant D (i.e., KRW 4,35,234 of the treatment expenses).

Accordingly, the defendants filed an incidental appeal against the part of the main claim against the defendants.

Therefore, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to ① the part against the Defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance and ② the part against the Plaintiff’s appeal.

B. As in relation to a counterclaim, the part of consolation money which the court of first instance ordered payment (2 million won to Defendant B and one million won to Defendant C) is subject to the judgment of this court, since the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the part against the Plaintiff among the counterclaim claims by appeal.

Furthermore, as Defendant B and C filed an incidental appeal against the part of the judgment of the first instance against the said Defendants (Counterclaim Plaintiff), the scope of the trial of this court is limited to the part against the Plaintiff, and the part against the Defendant B and C filed incidental appeal (including the expanded claim) in the judgment of the first instance.

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, the same is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Defendant B asserts that the additional expenditure of KRW 715,550 was made, but submitted.