사정재판에 대한 이의의 소
1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The appeal cost is the plaintiffs, the defendant and the defendant.
1. The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as follows: "the result of the fact inquiry" of the 20th judgment of the court of first instance is "the result of the fact inquiry of the court of first instance"; "the result of the fact inquiry of the court of second instance" of the 52th judgment is "the result of the fact inquiry of the court of second instance"; "the result of the fact inquiry of the court of second instance" is "the result of the fact inquiry of the court of second instance, and the result of the fact inquiry of the court of first instance" of the 52th judgment is "the result of the fact inquiry of the court of second instance"; and it is identical to the entry of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance in addition to adding the contents as described in
2. The part added under the 21th 9th 9th 【The part added under the 21th 9th 9】 The Plaintiffs for community fisheries in the instant case asserted that “The status of receiving payment by subrogation was confirmed as the limited creditors suffered damages successively from January 16, 2015 to October 28, 2016, and that the amount of collecting tar by Pyeongtaek-gun was 90km on January 2, 2008, including January 7, 2008 and January 10, 2008, the aggregate amount collected at 300km, and the amount of damage from the fishery as the damage to the 280rd g, the amount of damage from the sea industry in the instant case reaches the 20th kh m.” Thus, the court determined to the effect that there was a lack of direct causal relation between the Plaintiffs in the instant case and the Defendant’s damage from the village fisheries in Pyeongtaek-gun.”
The “tar collection daily report” attached to the result of a fact-finding conducted by the court of the first instance with the head of Pyeongtaek-gun of the court of the first instance is the same as the “tar collection daily report attached to the result of a fact-finding conducted by the court of the first instance on May 28, 2014 and on Jun. 12, 2014; and ② according to the fact-finding conducted by the court of the first instance on Jun. 12, 2014.