1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is entitled to KRW 2,311,912 against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and to the period from January 12, 2017 to September 1, 2017.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The defendant is a person who works as a golf instructor in the D golf practice range located on the first basement of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 101-dong Seoul Metropolitan Building C, as a golf instructor.

On November 17, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) around 09:13, as indicated in the [Attachment sheet (However, “applicant” is deemed to be “Plaintiff” and “applicant” to be “Defendant”; (b) caused an accident that is suitable for the Plaintiff’s head part of the Defendant, who was well aware of the Plaintiff’s operation of machinery (hereinafter “instant accident”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 10 or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred during the instant wing operation at a normal wing operation at a Twit, and the Defendant’s faulted from the wing to the wing wing operations, and thus, the Plaintiff was not responsible for the instant accident, and there is no liability for damages against the Defendant.

B. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff caused the accident of this case by getting out of the fixed wing place, and the defendant suffered bodily injury, etc. due to the plaintiff's breach of duty of care, and thus, the plaintiff is obligated to compensate for the damage caused by the accident of this case.

Specifically, the plaintiff shall pay the total of KRW 7,51,082 and damages for delay, including KRW 7,551,082 and KRW 7,890 and KRW 1,811,192, and damages for mental distress.

3. Determination

A. A person engaged in a wing practice at the top of a golf driving range that caused damage liability, bears a duty of care to ensure that another person does not comply with golf loans, such as conducting a wing practice, while neglecting the said duty of care, the Plaintiff’s head part is consistent with golf loans that the Plaintiff puts on the Plaintiff.