사정재판에 대한 이의의 소
1. All appeals by the Defendants except Defendant A, Defendant and the Plaintiffs, and Plaintiff are dismissed.
2...
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: the part of "7,597,714" in the table at the fifth bottom of the judgment of the court of first instance and "7,594,714" in the corresponding column of "7,59,714" and the part of "7,59,714" in the 10th "the parties entered as the defendant, the defendant (he heir), the defendant (he successor), and the plaintiff concurrent office (he successor) were successors to the defendant whose indication was corrected, and the parties entered as the plaintiff concurrent office (he heir), and the corrected part of "damage Adjustment Expenses" in the 14th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance as "cost of damage adjustment" and "the obligees's damages were no longer recognized as "damage adjustment expenses" in the 14th sentence and "the obligees' damages" in the 10th sentence of this case without any further consideration.
“Each addition” shall be followed by the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except that the following additions are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, following the 14th page 17, following the 15th page 4:
[Supplementary part] [Attachment 14] and (5) According to the result of the inquiry inquiry conducted on December 21, 2015, part of the creditors can be recognized as participating in the pest control work due to the instant accident.
However, the reason why the obligee participated in the pest control work can be the basis for the obligee’s residence in the vicinity of the affected area of the instant accident. It is readily concluded that the obligee was engaged in the first hand-on fishery.