1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and incidental appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) B.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court of first instance renders "the plaintiff" to "A" as "the plaintiff," thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the grounds of incidental appeal by the plaintiff B

A. The medical expenses incurred by the Defendant alleged in Plaintiff B include the medical expenses related to “compacted weight ratio, co-ray’s vision, and detailed unknown alaritis,” but the said obstacles should not be deemed the result of injury, but be deemed the Defendant’s king evidence.

B. Considering the overall purport of evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 3, 4, 6-1 through 5, and 8 of evidence Nos. 6-1, 5, and 8 of evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 3, 6-1 to 5, and 8, the Defendant was diagnosed by L Non-Ex Post Facto and Medical Doctor L on December 9, 2015 as “(in the event of a wound’s disease), i.e., cutting off, opening, (in the event of a injury’s disease), i.e., injury to ccos’ character, and in the event of a wound, i., e., the Defendant was diagnosed by the CFF’s doctor M on December 12, 2015.

As above, around December 3, 2015, the Defendant was subject to the instant first assault from Plaintiff B, and 10 days have not elapsed since it was performed the instant surgery. The diagnosis details and the details of the surgery correspond to the parts of the Plaintiff B who assaulted the Defendant, and the Defendant did not undergo any diagnosis or treatment with respect to the injury as seen earlier between the first assault and the first assault and the first assault.

Plaintiff

B The Defendant’s assertion alone.