1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The grounds asserted in the trial while the plaintiff and the defendant appealed from the court of first instance are not significantly different from the contents asserted by the plaintiff and the defendant in the court of first instance, and even if both the evidence submitted in the court of first instance and the purport of the whole pleadings in the court of first instance and the court of first instance are examined, the judgment of the court of

Therefore, this court's explanation of this case is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as described in paragraph (2) below with respect to the argument that the plaintiff and the defendant in the trial of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, as the "the court of second instance", "the decision to dismiss the third court" in the "the judgment to dismiss the third court", and "the next day after the sixthth square day" in the "the next day after the next day", and therefore, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s claim is based on the final and conclusive judgment of the Plaintiff’s claim for acquisition amount claim No. 2003Gapo27884 against D (hereinafter “instant claim No. 1”).

(B) The claim based on the final and conclusive judgment in respect of the case of loans claim No. 82324 against the Daegu District Court 2003dada8234 (hereinafter “instant second claim”) and E

The failure to recover is due to negligence in violation of the duty of due care of a good manager in calculating the amount of damages for the defendant, which is entirely a certified judicial scrivener, according to the terms of delegation under the delegation contract with the plaintiff. Thus, in calculating the amount of damages for the defendant, negligence should not be set off or the defendant's liability should not be limited, on the premise that the plaintiff was negligent. 2) The court below recognized the liability for damages, taking into account all the circumstances, and determined the amount of damages to the extent that it is reasonable in accordance with the ideology of the damage compensation system