1. The damages liability of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant due to an accident described in the attached list are as follows.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's first elevator of the building Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter "the elevator of this case").

(2) around 13:00 on July 6, 2017, the Defendant (D) was mixed with the instant elevator on the first floor of the C Building, and was detained in the elevator due to the suspension of the elevator being laid.

The defendant was informed of the fact of the above accident by telephone to a fraudulent person residing in the neighborhood, and the plaintiff's repair engineer arrived at the accident site at around 14:00 on the same day and sought the defendant who was detained in the elevator.

3) The Defendant is an elderly dementia patient and proposed the Defendant to pay consolation money of KRW 1,00,000 to the Defendant, but the Defendant demanded excessive medical expenses and nursing expenses. As such, the Defendant sought confirmation that the Plaintiff’s liability for damages against the Defendant due to the above accident does not exist more than KRW 1,00,000. (B) On the date of the accident, the Defendant’s assertion 1) confirmed that the instant elevator arrived at the 11st floor while carrying out the Defendant, and fell at the 10th floor, and was down to the 10th floor, and that the Defendant lost consciousness due to the shock of the crash, but did not operate an emergency bell even though the Defendant requested an emergency bell.

2) Therefore, the Defendant knew of the fact of the accident by telephone to the Defendant, and the Defendant’s fraud reported the accident to the 119th and the Plaintiff Company. The 119 first first arrived at the accident site and rescued the Defendant, and the employees of the Plaintiff Company confirmed the contents of the accident and returned to the Plaintiff. 3) Although the Plaintiff, as the managing body of the elevator, was negligent in performing its duty of care to regularly check and safely manage the instant elevator as prescribed by the Act, the said elevator crash accident occurred, and the emergency bell was not properly managed, and the emergency bell is not operated.