손해배상(기)
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition or modification as stated in the following two paragraphs, and therefore, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts added or corrected;
(a) the portion to be added between the third and the third, following the third, of the judgment of the first instance;
E. Plaintiff B died on June 12, 2014 while the instant lawsuit was pending, and at the time of Plaintiff B’s death, there was Z, V,W, and X, the wife and children, but at the time of Plaintiff B’s death. However, Y and Z filed a report of renunciation of inheritance with the Daegu Family Court 2014Ra2793, and the said court accepted the said report on February 13, 2015, and eventually, V, W, and X were left as Plaintiff B’s heir, and Y took over the instant lawsuit.
A person shall be appointed.
(b) On the 9th of the first instance judgment, the part “A No. 4, 10” in the first instance judgment is amended to “A No. 4, A No. 10, A 16 through 19, A No. 22, A No. 27, and A No. 28”.
On the Sheet 10th of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part “only the fact that the time of establishment of M is after check transactions” is amended to “The time of establishment of M is after check transactions, Party A’s evidence 15, Party A’s evidence 20, Party A’s evidence 21, Party A’s evidence 22, Party A’s evidence 27, and Party A’s evidence 28.”
Article 11 of the judgment of the court of first instance: (a) the part of the 7th sentence’s “Insufficient” is amended to include “Insufficient,” and the part of the evidence No. 26, No. 33-1, No. 2, and No. 34 are merely that there was no direct suspicion of criminal punishment against the plaintiffs in connection with the M defense incident; and (b) the above evidence also is related to the historical cause of the case, and (c) it is insufficient to recognize that the part of the above evidence is false.”
3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim.