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 court's explanation of this case is as follows. Defendant 1's assertion that the Defendants are emphasized or added in this court is repeating facts already alleged in the first instance court. Thus, we examine only Defendant 2's additional statement about this case.
In addition, “3. Additional Judgment” is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of “3. Additional Decision”, and thus, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
2. On the third-party 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the height of the appeal is deleted.
No. 3 of the judgment of the first instance court, No. 12 of the judgment of the first instance is the highest amount of bonds.
Section 4 of the judgment of the first instance court, Section 2 of "W" is deemed as "G".
Part 5 of the judgment of the first instance court, Part 3 "R" is regarded as "T".
3. Additional determination
A. The summary of the Defendants’ assertion 1) The Plaintiff C entered into a lease agreement on April 24, 2002, and the instant lawsuit was filed as of January 2, 2017 when 15 years have elapsed thereafter, and thus, the extinctive prescription of Plaintiff C’s claim for damages was expired. 2) As such, even if the Defendants breached their duty to explain on J land, there is no proximate causal relationship between the Defendants’ breach of duty to explain and the damages suffered by the said Plaintiffs, and even if the Plaintiff C’s lease agreement was renewed for 12 years or renewed, it was unreasonable to vest the Defendant G in the scope of proximate causal relationship.
B. The claim for damages at intervals between tort and nonperformance of obligation as to the claim for extinctive prescription 1, or between the occurrence of real damage, has existed as a potential in a conceptual and dynamic state.