1.Paragraph 1 and 2 of the order of the judgment of the first instance, including the claims extended in the trial, shall be amended as follows:

At the time of the occurrence of the liability for damages by Defendant B, C, and D, the Plaintiff completed a network call with Defendant B, C, and D on January 1, 2007, and tried to return home, the Plaintiff called Defendant B and the telephone call with the former female-friendly worker F and the telephone call.

The plaintiff was put to a vision while making a telephone call with the defendant B, and the plaintiff was in the vicinity of theJ.

Defendant B, together with Defendant C (former Name: G), and D, around 05:0 on January 1, 2007, between the Plaintiff and Japan Bank I branch in Seongdong-gu, Seoul, a place where the Plaintiff was her maturity, and jointly, Defendant D took part in the Plaintiff’s face at a drinking time, and Defendant C took part in the Plaintiff’s head and body as a dangerous substance, and Defendant C took part in the Plaintiff’s body’s head and body, and Defendant B took part in several parts of the Plaintiff’s body at approximately seven weeks of medical treatment (hereinafter “instant tort”).

Defendant B and D were indicted as a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective deadly weapon, etc.) by Seoul Eastern District Court 2007Kadan805. On September 18, 2007, the above court sentenced Defendant B to imprisonment with prison labor and one year and six months, and one year and six months, and three years of suspended execution to Defendant D, respectively.

Accordingly, Defendant B appealed and filed an appeal with Seoul Eastern District Court 2007No940, and the above court reversed the first instance judgment on November 29, 2007 and sentenced Defendant B to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months and three years of suspended execution. The above judgment was finalized on December 7, 2007.

On the other hand, at the time of committing the crime, Defendant C was subject to the disposition of transmission to the Juvenile Department as a minor (17 years of age).

[Ground of recognition] In light of the above facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 8, 14 (including the number of pages; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings, defendant B, C, and D are joint tortfeasors, and all damages incurred by the plaintiff due to the tort in this case.