1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The reasons why the court in the first instance court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: ① entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the result of the appraiser F of the first instance court's appraisal, the result of the appraiser F of the first instance court's entrustment to the appraiser F of the appraiser of the first instance court, the results of fact inquiry about the appraiser F of the first instance court's appraisal, and the purport of the entire pleadings. ② Under the 17th sentence of the same 17th case, where the damage suffered by the victim is concurrent between the above installation and preservation defects in a structure, the scope of compensation for damages should be limited to the remaining parts after deducting the part which is deemed to have contributed to the natural capacity on the occurrence of the damage from the perspective of fair burden of damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da6476, Apr. 29, 2005).

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiffs asserted that they were in the position of structural possessor who directly and specifically controlled the defendant's apartment while living in the defendant's apartment complex. Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the above plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

B. The Plaintiffs are the first instance court costs.