Defendant (Appointed Party), Appointor H, and I are joint, 1.0

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The court's explanation on this part of the claim for damages is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. 1) The extent of compensation for damages is determined as follows, taking into account the circumstances leading up to the occurrence of the tort of this case, the duration and frequency of the tort of this case, the types and patterns of the tort of this case, the degree of damage inflicted upon the plaintiff and the Appointed, the age and relationship between the Appointed and the Appointed, the circumstances after the tort of this case, and all other circumstances revealed in the argument of this case.

B) The portion that is not recognized as KRW 1,500,000 (Plaintiff 2,00,000 KRW 7,000,000) for Defendant C, D, and E (Plaintiff 500,000 KRW 1,500,000) due to the instant tort committed by the Appointor H, and the Plaintiff is working at work after the Plaintiff rejected the Appointor J due to the instant tort by the Appointor’s refusal to attend school.

As such, there were many cases where the workplace was dismissed, and for the purpose of grasping the truth of the tort of this case, the employer forced the recommendation company to be absent without permission due to frequent absence from the workplace, and eventually retired from the workplace, and the Defendants, Ha, and I should pay KRW 35,00,000 for the damages incurred therefrom.

However, it is difficult to deem that there is a proximate causal relation with the designated party H’s tort of this case, and such damage constitutes special damage.

As to such damages.