1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, KRW 1,00,000 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from November 25, 2014 to November 4, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. At around 07:00 on November 25, 2014, the Defendant, as an employee, abused the Plaintiff’s face at two times due to the delay in settlement in the GSknex D's office located in Dacheon-si, Dacheon-si, and assaulted the Plaintiff’s face at the time of the Plaintiff’s resistance.

B. On May 20, 2015, the Defendant issued the order of the Gwangju District Court 2015 High Court Decision 2691, supra.

The summary order was issued with a fine of one million won for criminal facts, and the above summary order became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was diagnosed by the Defendant’s assault and received treatment at the 4rd pressure frame, and was suffering from serious mental pain, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff medical treatment costs of KRW 3,639,450, 3,000, totaling KRW 6,639,450, and delay damages of KRW 6,639,450.

B. The Defendant’s assertion on the Defendant’s main defense and the merits of the instant lawsuit is unlawful, since the Defendant paid KRW 200,000 to the Plaintiff and agreed to do so, the instant lawsuit is unlawful. 2) The Plaintiff did not suffer injury due to the Defendant’s assault.

3. Determination

A. We examine the judgment of the defendant on the main defense of the safety, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant paid 200,000 won to the plaintiff and agreed to file a lawsuit against the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant's main defense of safety is without merit.

B. It is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff suffered bodily injury due to the Defendant’s assault, solely on the basis of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 5, and 7, and the fact-finding results in the court of first instance regarding E Hospital in the court of first instance, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, according to the purport of the evidence Nos. 3 and 6 and the entire text of the film and pleading, the Defendant is suspected of having committed an injury to the Plaintiff on May 1, 2015 due to insufficient evidence.