1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the judgment against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) equivalent to the amount ordered to be paid additionally below.

1. The reasoning of the court’s determination on the claims on the merits is as follows, and this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, given that the reasoning of the court’s determination on the claims on the merits is the same as that of the first instance

The following details shall be added to the third and fourth pages of the judgment of the first instance.

The Defendant deposited KRW 2,00,00 as a criminal agreement with the Plaintiff on October 17, 2017 when he/she was under criminal trial as above (No. 1825). This includes a report on collection restriction stating that “the Defendant, a depositor, shall not exercise the right to claim for recovery of the deposit until the judgment of innocence against the said criminal case becomes final and conclusive without the Plaintiff’s consent.” According to the purport of each of the statements and arguments in evidence Nos. 18 and 19, according to the National Health Insurance Corporation’s notice of other collection charges of the instant injury, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,164,020 to the National Health Insurance Corporation and paid KRW 2,164,020 to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, in order to additionally reflect the treatment expenses KRW 2,164,020, the Defendant changed the first instance judgment from the third instance judgment to the following page No. 17 to the same 19.”

According to the overall purport of each statement and pleading of evidence Nos. 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 18, and 19 (including household numbers) of “A”, the Plaintiff is recognized to have disbursed KRW 11,028,390 as the medical expenses incurred from the instant injury from December 17, 2016 to September 6, 2017. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserts that arrears of the National Health Insurance Corporation and other collection charges (194,760 won) should be included in the king medical expenses. However, the Plaintiff’s other collection charges incurred due to the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the other collection within the deadline, and thus, there is no proximate causal relation with the Defendant’s harmful act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.”