Of the costs of appeal, the part arising from the appeal by the chief of the defendant's seat, the excursion ship, and the Kimbong shall be borne by the defendants, while the part arising from the appeal by the plaintiff is borne by the plaintiff.

(1) Of the grounds of appeal No. 1 by the attorney at tin, wire, and Kim Jong-young, the summary of the judgment below was rejected as to No. 4 and No. 6-3, and it was recognized that the plaintiff's claim for damages was not extinguished by prescription since the court below issued No. 11 and No. 12, and it was against the rules of evidence that the court below violated the rules of evidence and there was no finding that the above evidence prepared by the court below was in violation of the rules of evidence and logical rules even after examining the records. Thus, the theory of lawsuit eventually leads to criticism on the original judgment by taking into account all the matters related to evidence preparation and fact-finding which belong to the court below.

(2) On June 14, 1958, the summary of the defendant's ground of appeal No. 2 was examined by the head of Young-gu branch office of the court below as to the defendant's ground of appeal No. 2. The plaintiff's defendant's ground of appeal No. 6. 6-3 (the plaintiff's ground of appeal No. 6-3 is recognized as the error of Gap's No. 6-3) and evidence No. 4. The plaintiff's ground of appeal No. 6 should be the starting point of extinctive prescription in accordance with the plaintiff's Young-gu branch office of the branch office of the court below's ground of appeal No. 2 and the defendant's ground of appeal No. 2. 2. The court below rejected the plaintiff's above damages and the perpetrator's ground of appeal No. 6. 4. 4. 7. 1958. 7. 1958. 6. 6. 3. 4. 6. 6. 2000

(2) The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal

(7) As to the first and second grounds for appeal, the first point is that the first point is that the first point is that the original court's finding the price of 600,000 won at the market price at the time of the occurrence of the damages caused by the original evidence is against the rules of evidence. In the second ground for appeal, the second point is that the original court's finding the plaintiff's negligence by the evidence in its judgment, and there is an error of law in the preparation of evidence that the court below admitted the plaintiff's negligence by the original court's finding the above facts, and therefore, it cannot be found that the evidence produced by the court below was in violation of the rules of experience or logic even after examining the records. Accordingly, the court below's determination was made to criticize the original judgment by

(2) As to the ground of appeal No. 3 of the plaintiff-appellant, even if there was a fault of the victim on part of the cause of the loss caused by embezzlement, there is no causation between the victim's negligence and the loss caused by the acquisition of stolen goods against the purchaser, and the co-defendant 1 of the first instance court, who committed embezzlement, did not bring an objection against the judgment of the first instance court (the judgment in favor of the plaintiff), and even though it became final and conclusive, it was improper to recognize a comparative negligence as to the claim for damages against the defendants on the ground that the plaintiff's negligence was committed on the crossing-down order of the above crossing-down order of the first instance court (the judgment in favor of the plaintiff), so long as the court below recognized the joint tort with the defendants and the co-defendant 1 of the first instance court, as legitimate, by legitimate evidence preparation, such negligence is also a causal relationship between the victim's negligence and the other joint tortfeasor, and even if the judgment of the court below against the victim becomes final and conclusive, the plaintiff's independent joint tortfeasor is not a joint tortfeasor.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges on the grounds that each of the grounds for appeal by the plaintiff and the defendants are groundless or groundless.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Magman (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak and Mag-Jak Ling Ling Ling-Jing Ling Ling