손해배상(기)
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as stated in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, unless the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance are modified as follows. Thus, this is cited pursuant to the main
[Supplementary part] Plaintiff A’s “Plaintiff” is deemed as “Plaintiff,” “Plaintiff-beneficiary Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd.,” “Plaintiff-beneficiary Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd.,” “Plaintiff Haststst Construction Co., Ltd.,” “Plaintiff Hawst Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd.,” and “Plaintiffs,” which were three from the third below, added “Plaintiffs” (the combination of Plaintiff and the first instance co-Plaintiffs, hereinafter “Plaintiffs”).
8 The 10th sentence is presumed to be unlawful.
7 3 parallels (Claims against Defendant B and C) and 11th parallels (Claims against Defendant) and 11th parallels (Claims against Defendant) and 11th parallels through 13th parallels (one parallels) shall be deleted.
10)Paragraph 3)(c) of this paragraph shall be added to:
“D) The Defendants asserted that in the relevant merits, an agreement was concluded between the Plaintiffs and some of the apartment residents of the instant case (39 of the 50 persons who filed the first lawsuit on the merits), and the lawsuit was withdrawn. The agreed apartment residents and the Plaintiff exempted the agreed amount from including the part on compensation for damages caused by unfair provisional seizure or from not claiming the part thereof. Thus, the Defendants asserted that they are liable to pay 110,000 out of the total amount of damages due to unfair provisional seizure to the Plaintiff.
The fact that 39 of the apartment residents, including the defendants, have reached an agreement with the plaintiffs and the withdrawal of the lawsuit is as seen earlier in the main lawsuit related to the Gavis.
However, the defendants did not consent to the above agreement, and the liability for damages caused by joint tort constitutes joint and several liability. The effect of exemption in the vicarious and several liability is to be effective.