1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 3,00,000 with the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from August 23, 2013 to October 12, 2015.

1. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1 through 3 as well as the whole pleadings, the plaintiff and the defendant have been punished for dispute over the issue of the product value and guest acts, etc. of defendant Eul during several years as they operated Cheong and Eul respectively from the stores adjacent to the F located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government with the trade name of "G" and "E". The facts constituting the crime that the plaintiff abused or injured the defendant during that process are found to have been subject to a summary order of 300,000 won on July 28, 2008; 50,000,000 won on October 15, 2009; 50,000 won on December 30, 2010; and 50,000,00 won on December 30, 2010.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Defendant B filed a claim for damages against the Defendants, on July 30, 2012, stating that “the Plaintiff got the chest of Defendant B before G located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, on his hand, around 12:00, he did not dismiss the Plaintiff and caused the Plaintiff to take a summary order of KRW 1,000,000, which requires approximately 2 weeks of treatment.” As to this, the Plaintiff filed a claim for formal trial at the request of Defendant B, the Defendant C testified the contents unfavorable to the Plaintiff and was subject to a fine in the first instance trial.

The plaintiff was pronounced not guilty in the appellate court, but in the process, spent 3,00,000 won in the first instance court to the attorney's fee, and 7,000,000 won in the appellate court to the appellate court, and received mental treatment. As such, the plaintiff sought a total of 10,000,000 won in the above attorney's fee and 5,00,000,000 won in compensation for damages caused by tort against the defendant Eul, and seek a payment against the defendant C for consolation money.

B. The Plaintiff and Defendant B’s respective advantages of each of the Plaintiff and Defendant B are linked to India with a width of five meters, which is a contribution, and Defendant B displayed the goods at a height of up to 2.5 meters with a contribution of four meters.