1. In relation to the accident described in the attached Form, the damage liability of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is assessed against him.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is operating a ELri-si, ELri-si, Yancheon-si, Namcheon-si, North Korean Peninsula 688.

B. On January 19, 2013, around 10:30 on January 19, 2013, the Defendant: (a) boarded the skiing from the dives sp spons (hereinafter “instant spons”); (b) went off from the dice spons (hereinafter “spons”); and (c) was changing the direction at the edge of the road; and (d) was injured by the Defendant, such as the right sponsor, the sponsor.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff asserted that there was no liability for damages against the Defendant in relation to the instant accident since the instant accident was caused by the Defendant’s care or the Ski’s care failure, and that there was no liability for damages arising from the instant accident as the Plaintiff’s principal lawsuit, arguing that there was no liability for damages arising from the instant accident against the Defendant.

B. As to this, the Defendant, at the time of the instant accident, accumulated snow contained in the skiing day at the edge of the instant slot, and thus, the Plaintiff, who was managing the instant slot, had been able to see the snow by performing the snow work, despite having been negligent in doing so. However, the Plaintiff, as the possessor of the instant slot, was liable for damages related to the instant accident caused by the Defendant’s breach of duty of care required for the installation or preservation thereof, asserting that the Plaintiff, as the possessor of the instant slot, was liable for damages, due to the Defendant’s breach of duty of care required for the installation or preservation thereof, was partly 15,00,000 won out of the lost income.