손해배상(기)
The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
1. The scope of this Court’s adjudication and the co-Plaintiff B, C, D, E, and F in the first instance trial (hereinafter “Co-Plaintiffs in the first instance trial”) filed the instant lawsuit seeking payment of damages for tort against the Defendants and co-defendant I in the first instance trial. The first instance court rendered a judgment dismissing all the claims of the Plaintiff and the co-Plaintiffs in the first instance trial.
As to this, the part of the claim against the plaintiff and the co-defendant I of the first instance judgment among the plaintiff and the co-defendant I of the first instance judgment, and the part of the claim against the defendants of the co-defendant of the first instance judgment is separately confirmed, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the claim against the defendants of the plaintiff.
2. The grounds for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance, which the plaintiff asserted in this court, are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance. Thus, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even when considering the evidence submitted in the court of first instance and the additional evidence
Therefore, this court's reasoning is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for partial dismissal as follows. Thus, this court's reasoning is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The expression "Plaintiffs" in the third to fourth of the judgment of the first instance is written in all the expressions "Plaintiffs" in the third to fourth of the judgment.
Part III of the judgment of the first instance is the representative of “Defendant Foundation G (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant G”) and Defendant I works as the representative of “Defendant Foundation G (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant G”)” and Defendant I works as the representative of “Defendant Foundation G (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant G”) and was retired on December 30, 2018.”
On the third side of the judgment of the court of first instance, the " prosecuted case against the violation of the Wastes Control Act" in the 12 to 13th sentence shall be applied to the "waste Control Act".
Part 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance is the fact that there is no dispute about the ground for recognition of guest 16 through 17, and the entries and arguments of Gap Nos. 1, 3, 17, and 20 (including paper numbers) are all made.