1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

3. The plaintiffs' lawsuit acceptance.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for addition or dismissal as stated in Paragraph 2 below, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the court's decision of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition or dismissal of the portion of the judgment of the first instance, which is either by inserting “A” as “A,” and adding the following details between the third and the third parallel.

“3) A) A died during the course of the trial of the competent court, and Plaintiff G and A’s children, the wife of Plaintiff G, and Plaintiff H, I, J, K, and L took over the instant legal proceedings.

Additional Determinations

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is that in relation to the tort liability part of the defendant B, since the defendant B, who is the perpetrator, intentionally committed an illegal act using the victim's fatherism, the victim's negligence contributed to the occurrence or expansion of the damage of this case, the defendant B's liability should not be limited on this ground.

B. It is not allowed for a person who intentionally committed a tort by taking advantage of the victim’s negligence to claim a reduction of his/her liability on the ground of the victim’s negligence. This is because, in cases where such intentional tort constitutes an acquisition act, the limitation of liability, such as offsetting negligence, would eventually bring about a result contrary to the principles of equity or good faith by having the perpetrator ultimately possess profits arising from the tort, and thus, even in cases of intentional tort, it is possible to limit liability based on comparative negligence or the principle of equity in cases where the aforementioned result is not caused.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da16758, 16765 Decided October 25, 2007, and 2010Da48561 Decided October 14, 2010, etc.) In light of the above legal principles, the number of evidence Nos. 2, 3, 3, 3, and 4 may be the number.