All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the ground of appeal by Defendant Educational Foundation DM

A. According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment partially admitted by the lower court, the lower court acknowledged facts as indicated in its reasoning, and, inasmuch as it is acknowledged that Defendant DN, the chief director of the Defendant Educational Foundation that operates DY University (hereinafter “Defendant DM”) committed a tort in the course of operating Defendant DO, the chief director, and Defendant DO, the chief director, committed a tort, Defendant DM, pursuant to Article 35 of the Civil Act, is also liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages arising therefrom.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on indirect damage.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in the second instance, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning, and determined that it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiffs, who were not included in the dormitory allocation team, actively recruited or participated in the recruitment of credits to acquire credits even if they did not attend classes with DY universities or the faculty in charge, and obtained credits unfairly even if they did not actually attend classes.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

C. According to the reasoning of the judgment below in the ground of appeal No. 3, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Plaintiff A, BM, and BR voluntarily voluntarily voluntarily retired from the DY University before the order of closure was issued, and even if Defendant DM’s assertion, the reasons for expulsion from the military register are as follows.