1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment includes the extension in the trial and the reduced counterclaim claim:

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: Gap evidence Nos. 25 through 30 (including paper numbers) which is insufficient to recognize the plaintiffs' assertion, and the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasons for the judgment, except for the use of or addition to some of the following matters, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The 61,947,390 won "61,97,390 won" of the 3rd judgment of the first instance shall be used as "72,113,660 won", and the 1st part of the same 3rd judgment shall be added "B No. 10" to the ground for recognition.

Of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance court, the part "3. Judgment on the counterclaim" (from 5, 11 to 20) shall be applied as follows:

“3. As seen earlier, the Defendant’s liability for damages against the Deceased does not exist. As such, the Deceased is deemed to have unjust enrichment of KRW 72,113,660 of the medical expenses paid by the Defendant. In addition, according to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiffs, as their children, succeeded to the Deceased’s obligation with 1/5 shares, respectively. As such, the Plaintiffs were to return unjust enrichment to the Defendant: (i) KRW 14,422,732, respectively; (ii) KRW 72,13,60,60 x 1/5; and (iii) KRW 12,389,478 as cited by the first instance court from February 20, 2017 to August 24, 2017; and (iv) KRW 12,389,478 of the instant counterclaim, which is deemed reasonable to dispute over the existence or scope of the Plaintiffs’ obligation to pay from the date following the pronouncement of the first instance court’s judgment to August 24, 2017.