1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants is modified as follows. A.

Defendant 1.

1. As to this part of the facts based on the judgment of the court of first instance, the corresponding part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance (from March 8 to 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance) shall be cited as the grounds of this judgment pursuant to the main sentence of Article 4

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant farming association corporation or C

A. As to this part of the claim for damages, the corresponding part of the grounds of the judgment of the first instance (from 7th to 9th 10th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e

except that part of the following shall be dried or added:

The 8th written judgment of the court of first instance and the 8th written judgment of the court of first instance are as follows.

The Plaintiff alleged to the effect that the instant business contract was cancelled or cancelled on the ground of the impossibility of performing the instant business contract or the deception by Defendant C and Co-Defendant D of the first instance trial (hereinafter “D”) against the original Defendant farming association corporation, but withdrawn this part of the assertion through the statement of the head of the military unit on June 8, 2017.

In addition, the Plaintiff Company asserted tort liability against the Defendant farming association corporation under Article 35(1) of the Civil Act in addition to the above employer liability. However, this is the selective relation between the Defendant farming association corporation’s employer liability and the existence and scope of its liability are the same as that of the employer’s liability. Therefore, it is not separately determined.

(i) 9 10 pages 10 of the first instance judgment, mutatis mutandis, add the following:

【2) As to this, Defendant C asserts to the effect that he is only the representative of the Defendant farming association corporation, and that he does not bear any liability for damages against the Plaintiff corporation on the ground that he did not assist the Plaintiff to commit deception, such as failure to know in detail about the purpose of permission or permission, since D was in charge of the permission for occupation and use and the instant business contract.

However, all the evidence and arguments mentioned above are examined.