1. The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's counterclaim shall be dismissed.

2. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is only 20 million won against the Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant A.

1. On the lawfulness of the counterclaim ex officio, we examine whether the counterclaim in this case is legitimate.

A counterclaim, in case where a claim which has become the object of a lawsuit is related to a claim or defense method of the principal lawsuit and the litigation procedures are not remarkably delayed, may be instituted not later than the time the pleadings in the principal

(1) Article 269(1) of the Civil Procedure Act (Article 269(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). The defendant's counterclaim is unlawful on the ground that it was filed on January 22, 2019, which was after the closing of argument in the principal lawsuit of this case.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. On the basis of Plaintiff A, Plaintiff B’s wife, Plaintiff C, E, F, and G are his children. The Defendant is the Defendant’s automobile with Ivoon (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

2) On May 16, 2015, J operated the Defendant’s vehicle at the national highways of the two-lane L Co., Ltd. located in the Hacheon-gun, Chungcheongnamcheon-gun, Chungcheongnamcheon-gun, with two-lanes, at the speed of approximately 130 km from Nbp to the Si-Dong-dong, along the two-lanes, and proceeded at a speed of about 130 km from Nbp to the Si-Dong-dong-dong-dong, and the Plaintiff sought to turn to the Nbpon on the road located on the right side of his course. Accordingly, on the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as an underground frame (closed) that requires approximately 12 weeks medical treatment.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). [Grounds for recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 6, 7, and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. As to the Defendant’s defense for discharge, the Defendant asserts that the instant accident was caused by the unilateral negligence of A, and thus, the Defendant is not liable to the Defendant. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs asserted that there is a proximate causal relation between the continuous operation of J and the injury inflicted on A.