1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are all dismissed.

2...

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A who are minors, and Plaintiff E and F are the parents of Plaintiff D who are minors.

B. On November 4, 2018, around 11:30, 2018, there was an accident that is suitable for the head of the Defendant D’s golf loan with Defendant D among Defendant D’s top seat, where Plaintiff D had conducted golf practice (hereinafter “instant accident”). Accordingly, Plaintiff A suffered an injury to throst and spophying sprink, which requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment.

[Ground of recognition] without dispute, Gap-1]

2. The respective descriptions or images of evidence 3, evidence 9-1, 2, and evidence 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. The instant accident involving the Plaintiffs’ assertion is an accident that occurred due to Defendant D’s mistake (influence of golf loans without examining the principal level).

Nevertheless, Defendant D did not take emergency measures, and Defendant E and F showed a view to blicking the instant accident without being subject to the intention of the accident.

Defendant D shall be liable for damages pursuant to Article 750 of the Civil Act, pursuant to Article 750 of the Civil Act, pursuant to Article 750 of the Civil Act or Article 755(1) of the Civil Act (where Defendant D is deemed to have no responsibility to compensate the damage).

Therefore, the Defendants jointly have a duty to pay the Plaintiff KRW 13,095,300 (a medical fee of KRW 95,300,000) (i.e., KRW 13,000,000), KRW 5 million to Plaintiff B, and KRW 5,637,300 to Plaintiff C (i.e., medical treatment expenses of KRW 637,300,00 for mental shock and treatment) and damages for delay to each of the above money.

B. The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the ground that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the ground that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the ground that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the part of the lower court.

Rather, it should be noted that a person outside other seats does not enter the golf bond range within other seats.