1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 2,537,044 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the amount from September 29, 2015 to July 18, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 29, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 23:00 on September 29, 2015, the Defendant took a bath before the Plaintiff in the Gu Park for profit-making in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, which is located in the Gu Park for profit-making, and (b) took the Plaintiff’s face while playing a dispute.

As a result, the plaintiff was placed on a wooden angle that 4th hand of the left hand while going beyond the floor, and the plaintiff sustained the streke of the strema bones, which requires six weeks' medical treatment.

B. The Plaintiff, at the same time and at the same place as the Defendant’s horse dispute, heard the Defendant’s desire from the Defendant, and suffered injury, such as an injury to the Plaintiff’s left arm’s length and face, which requires medical treatment for about 14 days, and damage to the integrity of the mouth.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”) the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s above dispute.

In the instant case, the Plaintiff and the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 2 million (hereinafter “instant summary order”) and KRW 1 million (hereinafter “the instant summary order”), respectively, by assaulting (the Defendant) and injuring (the Plaintiff) in the instant case 2015 High Court Decision 13381, and the said summary order became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 7 through 9, Eul evidence 1 (including where there is a lot number), the purport of the pleading before oral argument

2. Determination on the main claim

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is liable to compensate for the plaintiff's damage as a tort since he assaulted the plaintiff and injured the plaintiff.

Although the defendant asserts that there is no causal link between the plaintiff's injury and the accident of this case, the following facts are acknowledged by the purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 7, 8, and 9-1 and 2 and the purport of the oral argument. In other words, at the time of investigation into investigation agency on Oct. 3, 2015 (the point of time when four days elapsed from the accident date), the plaintiff stated that the plaintiff was assaulted to the defendant and suffered an injury to the left loss. ②