1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiff and the Defendant filed a claim identical to each of the above principal claims and the counterclaim claim, and the first instance court dismissed both the Plaintiff’s principal claim and the Defendant’s counterclaim claim.

Accordingly, since only the defendant appealed to dismiss the counterclaim among the judgment of the court of first instance, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the subject of the counterclaim claim.

2. Basic facts

A. On October 1, 2014, the Defendant brought a dispute over the issue of the settlement of parking expenses, which led the Plaintiff to go beyond the floor by cutting down the parts of the Plaintiff’s table.

(hereinafter “instant assault”). (b)

The Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Defendant that he was injured by the instant assault Nos. 2 and the KONA and the KONA had been damaged, and the investigative agency charged the Defendant with the charge of injuring the Defendant and causing property damage.

In the criminal procedure of the first instance against the defendant, the plaintiff appeared as a witness, and testified that it was cut off due to the assault of this case, and prepared and submitted to the full bench a written application stating the same purport.

The court of the first instance determined that the plaintiff suffered from an injury suspected of scambling due to the instant assault, and sentenced the defendant to a fine of KRW 2.5 million for the crime of injury and damage.

Seoul Central District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 2014Ra9527 Decided February 2, 2017).

Accordingly, the Defendant appealed, and the appellate court of the said criminal case appealed, and the judgment of the appellate court of the said criminal case did not discover a throke opinion from each of the above prosecutor’s images as of October 2, 2014, and thereafter, found out the crokes of the body of diagnosis (Evidence No. 7) and the result of the fact inquiry by the first instance court of the above case as to C (in combination of evidence No. 11; hereinafter referred to as “injury Examination Report, etc.”), and the medical advisory opinion of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “D”) more than the result of the fact inquiry by the above first instance court as to C (the evidence No. 11; hereinafter referred to as “C”).