2015Na23407 Damage

1. A stock company;

People's Republic of Korea:

B Representative Director

2. C Stock Company:

People's Republic of Korea:

D Representative Director D

3. E company.

old North Korean territory;

Representative Director F

4. Company G.

People's Republic of Korea:

Representative liquidator H

5. Efficacy of a stock company;

People's Republic of Korea:

I Representative Director I

6. J Co., Ltd.

People's Republic of Korea:

K representative director:

[Judgment of the court below]

1. L.

People's Republic of Korea:

2. M;

Daegu Western-gu

3. N;

Daegu Southern-gu

4. 0

Daegu Western-gu

5. P.

People's Republic of Korea:

6. Q.

Daegu Southern-gu

7. R;

Daegu Western-gu

8. S;

Daegu Western-gu

Attorney Lee Byung-ho, Counsel for defendant 1, 6 through 8

Defendant 2 through 5 Attorney Kim Sung-sung, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu District Court Decision 2013Gahap10769 Decided September 18, 2015

November 30, 2016

January 18, 2017

1. The judgment of the court of first instance, including the plaintiffs' claims extended at the trial. (a) The defendants in the statement in the table in [Attachment 1] to each of the relevant plaintiffs listed in the table in [Attachment 1] through (f) above, and the defendants in the table in the same table "amount quoted by the defendant" shall pay 5% interest per annum from April 18, 2015 to January 18, 2017; 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment; 1) The defendants in the table in the table in the same table in the table in the same table in the same table in the same table in each "amount of cited by the defendant as joint tortfeasor" shall be jointly recorded in the above paragraph (1) 1 to 5% interest per annum from the following day to the day of full payment; 8% interest per annum from 1 to 30% interest per annum 1 to 48% interest per annum 1 to 50% interest per annum 1 to 185% interest per annum.

To this end, 5% per annum from April 18, 2015 to January 18, 2017 and 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment day.B. The rest of the plaintiffs' primary claims and the conjunctive claims added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. 10% out of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and 90% shall be borne by the Defendants.

3. The above paragraph 1(a) may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

In the main and ancillary cases, the “Attachment 1” in Section 1(a) of the Disposition No. 1 shall be changed to “attached Form 2”, and the portion of the damages for delay shall be changed to “the amount of the claim” and the portion of the damages for delay shall be changed to “the amount of money calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the date of service of the copy of the request for change of the claim and the cause of the claim of April 16, 2015 to the day of full payment” as stated in Section 1(a) of the Disposition No. 1 (the plaintiff extended or reduced the claim in the trial, and the plaintiff filed a claim for the return of unjust enrichment by adding to “the amount of the claim for unjust enrichment due to the existing tort

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

1) The elderly group of Gyeongbuk-do is a local government which collects and sells aggregate after obtaining permission to extract aggregate from seven aggregate collection stations (in the case of the aggregate collection center in the artificial districts, the secondary districts, the village districts, the village districts, the village districts, the academic districts, the guest base districts, the third ground districts, and the rooftop mountain districts; hereinafter “the aggregate collection center in this case”) among the land that constitutes the Nakdong-dong river, which is a national river in the jurisdiction of the elderly military, from the elderly head of the Republic of Korea.

2) The Plaintiffs are companies that were performing the instant aggregate extraction, selection, and strawing operations by being awarded a contract with the aged group, and received service fees.

3) Defendant L, M, N,O, and P are the police assigned for special guard employed in the aged group. Defendant S, Q, and R are the employees of indefinite contracts belonging to the aged group. The Defendants, one police assigned for special guard and two employees employed in the management of the aggregate collection place of this case, and performed duties such as guard of the aggregate collection place of this case, the access of the aggregate transport vehicle, the number of aggregate sales proceeds, and the settlement of accounts.

B. Details of the contract between elderly group and the plaintiffs

1) On November 1, 2006, Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff A”, and other Plaintiffs will take place with the remaining trade names after deducting the stock company). On behalf of the above Plaintiff, the above Plaintiff entered into a contract with the aged Gun on behalf of the aged Gun from November 1, 2006 to October 31, 2007 (the extension between November 30, 2010 and November 30), which is 456 U.S. (hereinafter referred to as “Wananananan area”) on behalf of the aged Gun, using equipment such as dredging line, etc. from the river aggregate extraction site, and entered the contract into between the above Plaintiff and the aged Gun on the same terms and conditions as each of the above contracts (hereinafter referred to as “the terms and conditions of the contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the aged Gun”) with the aggregate extraction period, unit price, and the amount of each of the above contracts received from each of the above Defendants 1 through 6, respectively.

River Aggregate Picking Equipment Rental Fees and Unit Price Contract (No. 10-3)

In entering into an annual unit price contract for river extraction equipment rental fees (No. 10 No. 3) and an annual unit price contract for river extraction equipment rental fees, the following contract shall be entered between elderly military accounting officials (hereinafter referred to as "A") and the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "B"): 1. Terms and conditions of contract: Terms and conditions of contract: Terms and conditions of contract for river extraction equipment rental fees: The same shall apply to the terms and conditions of the contract by each plaintiff: 4. Terms and conditions of contract for river extraction equipment rental fees: The same shall apply to each of the terms and conditions of contract by each plaintiff:

“A” and each of the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiffs”) enter into the following contracts:

If an increase or decrease in quantity occurs, the contract shall be concluded after consultation between Gap and Eul).

Grounds

6. Equipment rental fee: The contract bond of each of the annexed Table 4 of the annexed Table for the corresponding annual contract unit price stated in the column.7. The contract bond of each Plaintiff is as specified in the respective terms and conditions of the contract. Article 2 (Implementation of Contracts and Payment of Rent) The Plaintiffs shall supply and demand this contract and implement it in accordance with the contract and related Acts and subordinate statutes, and the aged Gun shall pay the Plaintiffs the relevant equipment rental fee. Article 6 (Commencement of and On-the-spot Work) ① The Plaintiffs shall submit the field agent before the commencement and have the agent stay at the site within 15 days after the date of conclusion of the contract, and shall collect the site agent after taking over the site: Provided, That the contract may be unilaterally cancelled at the time of failure to comply with it without any justifiable reason (the submission of reasons within 15 days after the date of the contract).Article 7 (Collection of Revenues). The Plaintiffs shall be obligated to obtain aggregate and revenue collection from the military, and the Plaintiffs shall be obligated to verify the amount of rent and rent from the military from time to time to time to time to time after the expiration.

2) On December 29, 2006, Plaintiff C entered into a contract of this case with the elderly military, with the content that the said Plaintiff shall perform the work, such as aggregate extraction, from January 2, 2006 to January 2, 2007 (the extension to November 9, 2010) from the Seongbuk-gun's Sung-gun's Sung-gun's Sung-gun's Sung-gun's Sung-gun's Sung-gun's Sung-gun's Sung (hereinafter referred to as "Seoul-gun's Go-gun"), and entered the agreement of this case in the service agreement of this case (the evidence No. 11-3), and the amount corresponding to the "the status of the Plaintiff's collection of aggregate" in the service agreement corresponding to the "the status of the Plaintiff's collection of aggregate collection" in the service agreement of this case from November 10 to 9, 2008, and all of the service charges corresponding to the "the status of the Plaintiff's collection of aggregate."

3) On December 29, 2006, Plaintiff E entered into each of the instant contracts with the elderly group, with a view to collecting aggregate from December 28, 2006 to December 27, 2007 (the extension from December 27, 2006 to November 9, 2010) from the Sungbuk-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun (hereinafter referred to as “Seoul-gun”) and with a view to performing work, such as collecting aggregate, from the river extraction site of the Sungbuk-gun, Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun (hereinafter referred to as “Seoul-gun”), and received all of the service charges corresponding to the amount of aggregate extraction stated in the “amount of extraction” column of attached Table 3 from the elderly group.

4) On April 19, 2006, Plaintiff G entered into each of the instant contracts with the elderly group, with a view to collecting aggregate, from April 19, 2006 to April 18, 2007, where the said Plaintiff had been engaged in the work, such as collecting aggregate, from the river extraction site in the area of Mangnsan-gun of Mangyeong-gun of Mangyeongbuk-do (hereinafter referred to as “An area of Mangnsan-gun”), and received all of the service charges corresponding to the quantity of aggregate extraction stated in the relevant Plaintiff’s “the quantity of extraction” column from April 19, 2006 to April 31, 2007.

5) On October 5, 2003, Plaintiff Fym Chang-si entered into each of the instant contracts with the head of the elderly group with a view to collecting aggregate, etc. from October 13, 2003 to October 6, 2006 (the extension from October 9, 2010 to the above Plaintiff’s extension of the period from October 13, 2003 to October 6, 2006) and received all service charges corresponding to the quantity of aggregate extraction stated in the column of “the quantity of extraction” in the instant service contract from the elderly group.

6) On July 9, 2008, Plaintiff J entered into each of the contracts of this case with the effect that the said Plaintiff shall perform the work of extracting aggregate, etc. from July 14, 2008 to July 13, 2009 (the extended period from July 13, 2010 to the date of July 13, 2010) from the elderly military unit, and from the river aggregate extraction site in the Dong-ri 839 House (hereinafter referred to as “Maoksan District”) (No. 15-1 to 3), and received all of the service charges corresponding to the amount of the aggregate extraction stated in the column of “the relevant Plaintiff’s extraction quantity” in the attached Table of the service contract of this case from the elderly military (hereinafter referred to as “Masan District”).

C. Operation of the aggregate extraction place of this case

1) The elderly group sold aggregate extracted from the aggregate extraction site in this case directly to the aggregate users. The work of collecting and screening the aggregate from the actual aggregate and cutting off the aggregate onto the transporting vehicle of the aggregate purchaser shall be made to the Plaintiffs, and the service cost according to the amount of the work shall be paid to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs used equipment such as dredging lines in the aggregate extraction site in this case to gather and select the aggregate within the permitted scope as indicated in the “permission Quantity” column in the attached Table 3 service condition table, and entered the aggregate in a temporary open space when the aggregate buyer’s transport vehicle arrives. The aggregate resale price was deposited from the transportation vehicle’s driver and deposited into the elderly military account by the Defendants, and then the elderly group paid the river occupation charge or the service cost to the prime contractor.

2) The elderly group confirmed the quantity of aggregate removal by means of electronic control by preparing and controlling an electronic computer system (a automatic system) in which the aggregate sales program is installed in the instant aggregate extraction site. In other words, when a vehicle to transport aggregate enters the instant aggregate extraction site, it passed through a valley, and at the same time, when the Defendants, who are the employees of the relevant richosium, contacted the card issuing machine with the driver with the vehicle number entered, and at the same time, when the transport vehicle, whose upper operation has been completed, went out of the aggregate extraction site of this case, the said RF card was in contact with the card issuing machine, and at the same time, the number of aggregate removal and the shipment certificate in which the amount of the removal and the amount of the aggregate are calculated was carried out.

3) The Defendants, the management early employees, recovered the said RF card from the drivers of the aggregate transport vehicles and received the aggregate payment indicated on the half-out card each day, and deposited the aggregate sales on the day immediately before the end of the business at 17th day into the elderly military account by setting the amount of the aggregate sales on the day, and then bound the original of the shipment certificate on the day and the station within the aggregate removal from the computer system to the work site, and received approval by the method of submitting it to the public officials in charge of the elderly military administration.

D. The theft of this case and the determination of related civil and criminal judgments

1) The computer system installed in the instant aggregate extraction site by elderly group was equipped with a security device that leads to security function created in the order without overlapping or omitting the data serial numbers (CID) when the RF card development function is performed. Even if an employee of the management post office arbitrarily deletes the data related to the removal of aggregate, the serial numbers that are harmful to the deleted data can be known, so that the data can be known without permission. However, the above data removal details did not appear on the day when the management post office employee printed out the data daily from the computer system and submitted it to the public official in charge of the Plaintiff and obtained approval.

2) Accordingly, the Defendants, in combination with T, U,V, W, and the Plaintiff’s site manager, who is an inorganic contract employee of the instant aggregate extraction site, decided to remove some aggregate without permission, by selling aggregate removal-related data arbitrarily removed from the aggregate to the public officials in charge of the elderly military, and not depositing the amount into the accounts of the elderly military, in a manner that sells aggregate removal-related data arbitrarily removed from the aggregate to the public officials in charge of the elderly military, who are responsible for the removal of the aggregate removal site.

3) The Defendants, from April 2007 to March 2010, stolen aggregate (hereinafter referred to as “the instant aggregate”) such as the description in the column of “the amount of personal amount calculation sheet” in attached Form 4, which was collected and selected by the Plaintiffs, as the temporary site of the instant aggregate extraction site, from April 2007 to March 4, 201, as seen above (hereinafter referred to as “the instant act of theft”).

4) The Defendants were subject to inspection by the elderly group around April 2010 due to the instant theft. From March 25, 2011 to October 12, 201, the Defendants were indicted for a crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. From February 16, 2012 to May 21, 2012, Defendant L was sentenced to imprisonment of two years and six months, and KRW 19.2 million, Defendant M was sentenced to imprisonment of two years and six months, and KRW 18 million, and KRW 1,60,000, KRW 1,680, KRW 00, KRW 200, KRW 1,680, KRW 00, KRW 2000, KRW 25, KRW 2000, KRW 72,000, KRW 36,000, KRW 26,000, KRW 16,000 and KRW 360,00.

5) The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the aged group seeking payment of service charges or damages for using the service charges under each of the instant contracts, as the Defendants’ instant theft acts did not receive the instant aggregate from the aged group, and subsequently lost all of them (Seoul District Court Decision 2011Dahap1492 decided November 15, 2012 ? Daegu High Court Decision 2012Na20841 decided October 2, 2013 ? Supreme Court Decision 2013Da214253 Decided January 24, 2014 hereinafter collectively referred to as “related civil judgment”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including branch numbers, if no special indication is made)

(c) Entry of the evidence of Articles 5 through 7, 10 through 15, and consideration by the first instance and the second instance; and

As a result of fact inquiry about the Gun, the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts, the defendants' act of theft of this case constitutes tort against the plaintiffs since the plaintiffs' act of theft of this case constitutes tort since the plaintiffs' act of theft of this case constitutes a tort against the plaintiffs since the plaintiffs' act of theft of this case was done without permission by collecting and selecting aggregate in accordance with each of the contracts of this case, and the plaintiffs' act of transport of aggregate in this case was committed without permission.

Therefore, the Defendants are liable to compensate the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the above tort ( insofar as they accept the Plaintiffs’ primary assertion, they do not determine the Plaintiffs’ preliminary claim, namely, the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment, which is the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment).

B. Determination of the defendants' assertion

1) Whether the victim consented (illegally)

The Defendants asserted that the Defendants’ act is not unlawful against the Plaintiff, since the Defendants removed the instant aggregate jointly with the Director of the On-Site Office under the Plaintiffs’ consent or implied consent.

However, even if the Director of the On-Site Office participated in the act of theft of this case as alleged by the Defendants, such circumstance alone is sufficient to deem that the Plaintiffs consented or impliedly consented to the act of theft of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above assertion by the Defendants on a different premise is without merit.

2) Whether the extinctive prescription has expired (unlawfully)

The Defendants asserted that, in light of the following: (a) not only the Plaintiff’s head of the site office participated in the instant theft act; (b) on April 2010, the administrative audit of the elderly group pointed out the instant theft act; (c) on March 25, 201, some Defendants were indicted against the Defendant; and (d) on May 18, 201, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the elderly group regarding the relevant civil judgment against the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs should be deemed to have known of the damages and the perpetrator caused by the instant theft act until October 2010; (c) however, (d) the Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit on November 15, 2013 where three years have passed thereafter, the statute of limitations for the claim that the Plaintiffs sought by the instant lawsuit had expired for the short term of three years.

In the case of a juristic person, the date when the representative becomes aware of the damages and the identity of the perpetrator means the day when the representative becomes aware of the damages and the identity of the perpetrator. However, in the case where the representative of the juristic person commits an illegal act against the juristic person, the profits of the juristic person and the representative of the juristic person conflict with the profits of the juristic person, so it is difficult to expect that the representative of the juristic person would exercise his right to claim damages from the juristic person, and in general, the representative of the juristic person would not be denied the right to claim damages and the identity of the perpetrator. Therefore, in such a case, the short-term extinctive prescription takes place only when the other representative, officer or employee who has the right to properly preserve the profits of the juristic person becomes aware of the fact that the other representative or officer has committed a joint illegal act with the representative of the juristic person, the other representative, officer, etc. shall be excluded and the starting point of the short-term extinctive prescription should

Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, which is the starting date of the short-term extinctive prescription of a claim for damages due to a tort, “date on which the victim becomes aware of the damage and the perpetrator” means the time when the victim has actually and specifically recognized the facts requiring the tort, such as the occurrence of the damage, the existence of the illegal harmful act, and proximate causal relation between the occurrence of the harmful act and the damage. Furthermore, whether the victim, etc. is deemed to have actually and specifically recognized the facts requiring the tort should be reasonably determined by taking into account the objective circumstances in each individual case and taking into account the situation in which the claim for damages is practically possible. Since the above short-term extinctive prescription is a system unique to the civil relationship established regardless of the prosecution of the criminal case, the starting date of the prescription is not, in principle, affected by the prosecution of the relevant criminal case and the outcome thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da7577, May

In light of the above legal principles, even if the head of the plaintiffs' site office participated in the act of theft of this case, unless it is clearly stated that at least other representatives, executives, employees, and employees who have the authority to properly preserve the interests of the corporation were aware of the fact that they were able to exercise their right to claim compensation for damages, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiffs were aware of the fact as seen earlier. In addition, around April 2010, there was a point of view as to the act of theft of this case in the administrative audit of the elderly military. On March 25, 2011, some defendants were indicted against the defendants, and on May 18, 2011, there was a litigation as to the related civil judgment against the elderly military. However, even if the above circumstances and the statements of evidence Nos. 1 and 6 were sufficient to recognize the damages and the perpetrator caused by the act of this case before November 15, 2010, the defendants' assertion is without merit.

3) Whether liability is limited (unlawful)

The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiffs did not properly confirm the daily aggregate removal quantity, and rather, the Plaintiffs’ negligence, such as the present places of the Plaintiffs’ participation in the instant theft, has contributed to the occurrence and expansion of damages. Therefore, the Defendants’ liability should be limited to less than 50%.

However, it is not permissible for a person who intentionally committed an illegal act by taking advantage of the victim's care to claim a reduction of his responsibility on the ground of the victim's care immediately (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da66066, Nov. 10, 2005). In particular, a person who committed a joint non-legal act against an employer with an employee can not claim that the victim, who is the victim, was negligent in neglecting the management and supervision or preventing his/her own illegal act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu637, Jul. 21, 1987). Accordingly, the Defendants' above assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Scope of liability for damages

A. Relevant legal principles

Property damage caused by a tort refers to the difference between the property disadvantage caused by an illegal harmful act, i.e., the property condition that would have existed without the illegal act and the current property condition that caused the illegal act. It is divided into the form of active damage whose existing benefit would have been lost and the form of passive damage whose benefit would not have been gained future (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da33070 delivered on June 23, 1992, etc.).

Unless special circumstances exist, such as that the amount of unjust enrichment or damages arising from the occupation and use after the termination of the contract period, if there is a contract fee stipulated in the lease agreement, the amount equivalent to the contract fee, barring special circumstances, such as the actual difference between the contract fee and the contract fee (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da60535, Jun. 1, 2001).

B. The plaintiffs' damages caused by the theft of this case

According to the above evidence, the plaintiffs were kept in custody of the aggregate in accordance with each of the contracts of this case, and if there was no theft of this case, the plaintiffs would have been able to receive the service cost for collecting aggregate from the elderly group. It is recognized that the defendants had been able to receive the service cost for collecting aggregate from the elderly group. Thus, the defendants did not receive the service cost for the plaintiffs by removing the aggregate in custody of the plaintiffs under the act of theft of this case without permission, and there is no counter-proof. Thus, unless there is no counter-proof, the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the theft of this case are equivalent to the service cost agreed to be paid by the elderly group

The plaintiffs asserted that the part other than the part of the permission quantity for extraction stipulated in each of the contracts of this case, i.e., the damage amount arising from the theft of the part exceeding the above permission amount, is the amount equivalent to the actual expenses for extraction of aggregate. According to the above evidence, the plaintiffs could have known when collecting and storing aggregate. Thus, as alleged in the plaintiffs, even if collecting aggregate beyond the scope of permission amount for extraction of aggregate under each of the contracts of this case, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiffs had already known the fact of collecting aggregate exceeding the above permission amount when collecting aggregate beyond the above permission amount, and therefore, it is reasonable to view that the above permission amount exceeded the above permission amount is not due to the act of this case, but due to their own decision. Thus, there is no causation between the act of theft of this case and the act of collecting aggregate beyond the above permission amount, and the above argument of the plaintiffs is without merit (the difference between the amount equivalent to the actual expenses for reconstruction of aggregate collection and the agreement between old group and service amount claimed by the plaintiffs).

Therefore, each specific amount of damages of the plaintiffs is the amount calculated by multiplying the specific amount of damages by each service unit price per aggregate per 1 square meter of aggregate specified in each contract of this case (the "annual contract unit price" column in attached Table 3 and the "Calculation Table of Personal Use Amount" column in attached Table 4), and the corresponding amount in attached Table 4, "amount of damage" column or "amount of "amount of personal use" column in attached Table 4, or "amount of money" column of "amount of money" column of each "amount of money" column in attached Table 4 (the total calculation result is the "amount of money for personal use" table).

C. Sub-determination

Therefore, the defendants are liable to compensate for damages caused by joint tort. (1) The defendants as stated in the "amount quoted by the defendants" in the "amount quoted by the defendants" in the "amount quoted by the defendants in the same table. (2) The defendants as stated in the "amount quoted by the defendant of each joint tortfeasor" in the "amount quoted by each joint tortfeasor" in the same table as stated in the above table (1) through (5) as stated in the above table (1) (1) through (5) of the above table (1) of the same table (1 to (5) - - - 3 of the amount of money in each of the above table (6) through (8) of the "amount of money in each of the non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's claim's non-party's damages.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as they are without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with a different conclusion, the court of first instance shall partially accept the defendants' appeal, and it shall be modified in accordance with the judgment of the court of first instance, including the claims expanded in the trial. It is so decided as per Disposition 1.

Article 5 (Presiding Judge)

Freeboard Kim

The grandchildren Hospital; and

Attached 1 List of Prize Amount

A. Plaintiff A

Unit: Won

A person shall be appointed.

Unit: Won. Plaintiff C

Unit: Won

A person shall be appointed.

Unit: Won. Plaintiff E

Unit: Won

A person shall be appointed.

Unit: Won. Plaintiff G.

Unit: Won

A person shall be appointed.

Unit: H. H. H. H. H. H. H.

Unit: Won

A person shall be appointed.

f. Plaintiff J

Unit: Won

A person shall be appointed.

Unit: Schedule of Claim Amount in Appendix 2

A. Plaintiff A unit: Won

A person shall be appointed.

A. Plaintiff A unit: Won; Plaintiff C. unit: Won

A person shall be appointed.

A. Plaintiff A unit: Won b. Plaintiff C. unit: Won c. Plaintiff E

Unit: Won

A person shall be appointed.

Unit: Won. Plaintiff G.

Unit: Won

A person shall be appointed.

Unit: H. H. H. H. H. H. H.

Unit: Won

A person shall be appointed.

f. Plaintiff J

A person shall be appointed.

Finally.

Attached 3 Statement of Status of Services Contracts

A person shall be appointed.

Attached Form 4 Calculation Table of Prize Amount

1. Plaintiff A (A)

A. Defendant L

A person shall be appointed.

B. Defendant M

A person shall be appointed.

C. Defendant N

A person shall be appointed.

D. Defendant’s objection

A person shall be appointed.

E. Defendant P.

A person shall be appointed.

F. Defendant Lee

A person shall be appointed.

G. Defendant R

A person shall be appointed.

(h) Defendant S

A person shall be appointed.

2. Plaintiff C (Seoul District, annexed District).

A. Defendant L

A person shall be appointed.

B. Defendant M

A person shall be appointed.

C. Defendant N

A person shall be appointed.

D. Defendant’s objection

A person shall be appointed.

E. Defendant P

A person shall be appointed.

F. Defendant Q.

A person shall be appointed.

G. Defendant R

A person shall be appointed.

(h) Defendant S

A person shall be appointed.

3. Plaintiff E (UD).

A. Defendant L

A person shall be appointed.

B. Defendant M

A person shall be appointed.

C. Defendant N

A person shall be appointed.

D. Defendant’s objection

A person shall be appointed.

E. Defendant P

A person shall be appointed.

F. Defendant Q.

A person shall be appointed.

G. Defendant R

A person shall be appointed.

(h) Defendant S.

A person shall be appointed.

4. Plaintiff G (UD).

A. Defendant L

A person shall be appointed.

B. Defendant M

A person shall be appointed.

C. Defendant N

A person shall be appointed.

D. Defendant’s objection

A person shall be appointed.

E. Defendant P.

A person shall be appointed.

F. Defendant Q.

A person shall be appointed.

G. Defendant R

A person shall be appointed.

(h) Defendant S

A person shall be appointed.

5. The plaintiff's filial piety district;

A. Defendant L

A person shall be appointed.

B. Defendant M

A person shall be appointed.

C. Defendant N

A person shall be appointed.

D. Defendant’s objection

A person shall be appointed.

E. Defendant P

A person shall be appointed.

F. Defendant Q.

A person shall be appointed.

G. Defendant R

A person shall be appointed.

(h) Defendant S

A person shall be appointed.

6. Plaintiff Jinsan District

A. Defendant L

A person shall be appointed.

B. Defendant M

A person shall be appointed.

C. Defendant N

A person shall be appointed.

D. Defendant’s objection

A person shall be appointed.

E. Defendant P

A person shall be appointed.

F. Defendant Q Q

A person shall be appointed.

G. Defendant R

A person shall be appointed.

(h) Defendant S.

A person shall be appointed.