1. The judgment of the first instance is as follows, including the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim that has been expanded in the trial of the first instance.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The Plaintiff and the Defendant filed a principal claim and a counterclaim in the first instance trial, as stated in the purport of the claim. The court of first instance dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim, and the court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing the remainder of the Defendant’s counterclaim by citing part of the Defendant’s counterclaim and ordering the Plaintiff to pay 7,00,000 won per annum to the Defendant from November 6, 2014 to July 23, 2015, 5% per annum from July 2015, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

With respect to the judgment of the first instance court, the Defendant extended the claim for the counterclaim against the Defendant regarding the counterclaim of the judgment of the first instance as stated in the purport of appeal by 5% per annum from the service date of the copy of the counterclaim of this case to the pronouncement date of the judgment of the first instance, and by 20% per annum from the following day to the delivery date of the copy of the counterclaim of this case, and by 40,685,746 won from the next day to the full payment date, with respect to the damages for delay calculated by 15% per annum from the following day of the service date of the copy of the counterclaim of this case to the pronouncement date of the judgment of the first instance (20% per annum - 5% per annum).

As stated in the purport of the incidental appeal, the Plaintiff filed an incidental appeal regarding the whole part of the judgment of the first instance against the Plaintiff.

Therefore, among the part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the part concerning the counterclaim, the part against the plaintiff, and the part against the defendant within the amount of objection against the defendant (including the claim for counterclaim extended by the defendant in the trial) are the scope of the judgment of the court of this Court.

2. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a doctor who operates the D Hospital located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Plaintiff Hospital”), and the Plaintiff hospital is a hospital specialized in in in ebrate therapy.

B. The Defendant had a program of “G” contributed by the physician F of the Plaintiff Hospital with the Plaintiff’s physician F, while the Defendant experienced symptoms where hackers and fingers are not bended.