1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be individually counted.

1. The grounds for appeal by the Plaintiff and the Defendants are not significantly different from the allegations by the court of first instance. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance, the fact-finding and judgment by the court of first instance are recognized as legitimate.

Therefore, the court's reasoning for this case is as follows: ① "the person in the fourth page 18 of the judgment of the court of first instance" was "the person in the fourth page 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance"; ② "the dispute of the plaintiff in the sixth page 15" was corrected as "the dispute of the defendant"; ② "the part in the seventh page 13 through 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance was written as "the part used in the second page 2.2"; ③ Except for deletion of the seventh page 16 through 18 of the judgment of the court of first instance, it is stated as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for deletion of the first page 16 through 18 of the judgment of first instance.

2. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff is responsible for compensating the Defendants for damages caused by coercion, since they forced the Plaintiff to participate in the instant drinking field and perform their duties even after the instant assault case occurred.

Therefore, on August 6, 2016, when the defendants participated in the drinking beverage of this case and the assault case occurred, the facts that the defendants returned to Korea without performing any public performance any more on the same day as the facts found in the above facts of recognition. In light of these facts, it is not sufficient to recognize that the voice of Nos. 2, 4, and 5-2 and No. 5-1 of No. 5-2 were forced the defendants to continue the public performance beyond the extent that the plaintiff knew that the plaintiff continued to perform the public performance, and there is no other evidence to support that the plaintiff forced the defendants to continue the public performance.

Therefore, the defendants' assertion on the premise that the plaintiff forced the defendants to continue the performance.