손해배상(국)
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs in the trial shall be modified as follows:
The defendant is against the plaintiffs.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is next to the judgment of the first instance.
It is identical to that of the plaintiffs in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the correction as stated in the following Paragraph 2, and the determination in the court of first instance is added. Therefore, the relevant part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
B. (1) The amended portion 1) the 10th 20th 10th 20th 198 "2.28th 28th 199" appears to be ".31 August 1999" and each part 4th 1999. However, the part hereinafter referred to as "the 21th 2nd 2nd 2nd 21st 21 was "180,923,169" as "B" 116,495,702 "B" as "132,284,181th 2nd 18th 2nd 21th 21th 21th 2nd 1999.
2) Each “180,923,169 won” of the first instance trial 25th and 26th and 1,3th and each week 6th and each week 180th 1,923,648 won shall be considered as “196,71,648 won”, “1,200 days” of the second 26th and “1,204 days” of the third 3rd 1,200 days, and “1,200 days after the last 1,104th 1985 from November 19, 1985”, respectively.
3) The judgment of the court of first instance is added in front of the “attached Form 1” in the attached Form 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the part against the plaintiffs in the attached Form 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance as “from February 23, 1986 to November 19, 1985,” and the “instant case” in the same behavior as “the first instance court”, and the “ September 6, 2019, which is the date of the pronouncement of the judgment of the court of first instance” in the attached Table 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance as “ September 18, 2019, which is the date of the pronouncement of the judgment of the court of first instance.”
2. Determination on addition
A. The plaintiffs' assertion regarding the time of retirement with respect to the lost profits of the networkV is justified. Thus, the above 1-B is accepted.
As seen in the paragraph, the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance was modified.
B. The part rejected by the Plaintiffs up to the first instance trial.