손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasoning of this court’s acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the amended portion as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. To delete the 6th written judgment of the first instance, the 14th through 19th of the 6th instance judgment; and
The judgment of the court of first instance is replaced by the Act No. 6 through No. 7, the Act No. 4, the Act No. 1, the Act No. 1, the Act No. 1, the Act No. 1, the Act No. 1, the Act No. 1, the Act No. 1,
The judgment of the first instance court shall add “Insufficient,” the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance,” and “The video of the evidence Nos. 6 through A No. 15 are insufficient to be recognized.”
Part 8 through 9 of the judgment of the first instance court shall be deleted even if there is no evidence, and then "the defendant C sent it to the defendant B" shall be added.
The 9th judgment of the first instance is replaced by the 13th through 21th judgment as follows.
"The plaintiff filed a complaint and a civil lawsuit against the plaintiff as a crime of adultery, after having known the plaintiff to the defendant B by inducing the plaintiff to communicate with the defendant B, and the plaintiff requested money by threatening the plaintiff. This in itself asserts that it constitutes a tort against the plaintiff as a tort against the plaintiff.
However, the facts acknowledged earlier are insufficient to deem that Defendant C demanded money by threatening the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, and Defendant C told the Plaintiff on September 18, 2008 that the Plaintiff would have divorced with Defendant B, and that it would be well-known with Defendant C. However, even though Defendant C had expressed that he would not proceed to divorce with the Plaintiff on September 20, 2008, the Plaintiff continued to teach the Plaintiff with Defendant B, while continuing to teach the Plaintiff with Defendant B, and was found to be in the form of taking off clothes from Defendant B’s residence on September 25, 2008.