1. All appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is rendered.

As to this case, this court's acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the entry of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance in addition to the entry of the reasons for which the plaintiffs asserted again as follows, and thus, this court shall accept it as it is by the main text of Article 420

Forms 7 through 6 of the decision of the first instance shall be stated in the following manner:

However, in the case of Plaintiffs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, Q, etc. after the tort in this case, the family relationship was formed with the Plaintiff L, M, N,O, Q, etc. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the aforementioned facts and evidence, including evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs, including evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs in the trial at the party, or the results of Plaintiff L’s personal examination, it is difficult to recognize that the above Plaintiffs suffered specific mental damage that may be inflicted upon the Plaintiffs due to the tort in this case. Since the Defendant cannot be deemed to have committed a tort such as illegally monitoring the above Plaintiffs due to the extension of the period of this case’s tort even after the establishment of the family relationship, the Plaintiffs’ claim for damages is rejected.

① On January 26, 1987, Plaintiff A, B, and C L were married with Plaintiff A, thereby generating W Plaintiff C, and divorced from Plaintiff A on January 16, 2003, and subsequently married with Plaintiff B.

On the other hand, the plaintiff L was detained in other cases in 1986 and sentenced to imprisonment for a prison term of six years, and was exempted from prison punishment and reinstated on December 20, 198.

As such, Plaintiff L was detained in a different criminal case and was sentenced to a sentence, and the above Plaintiffs thereafter formed a family relationship with Plaintiff L, and there is no evidence to deem that the above Plaintiffs were illegal inspection or surveillance after the aforementioned Plaintiffs formed their family relationship with Plaintiff L.