1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The Defendants jointly set forth the Plaintiffs KRW 22,500,000, respectively.

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is as follows, and this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

The second 10th 10th 10th 10th 1st 10th 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st

On March 30, 2011, the second part of the judgment of the first instance was served on the Defendants on March 30, 201.

Article 10-11 of the judgment of the court of first instance provides that "A lawsuit of objection filed by the Seoul Western District Court 2013Kaman2292" shall be construed as "A lawsuit of objection filed by the Seoul Western District Court 2013Kahap12563." The fourth 14-15 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be construed as "the fourth 26-15 of the judgment of the court of first instance" as " December 27, 2013." The fifth 1st 5th 5th 1st 1st 1st 2013 Seoul Western District Court 2013Kao2292 in the case of objection filed by the Seoul Western District Court" as "the case of objection filed by the Seoul Western District Court 2013Kahap12563".

2. The grounds for this part of the arguments by the parties are the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination

A. As to the occurrence of the liability for damages, in full view of the health room, Gap evidence Nos. 6, 12, and 13, Eul evidence Nos. 3-1, 2-2 of Eul evidence Nos. 3-2 of the court of first instance, defendant Nos. 1 and 3-2 of the court of first instance, and the whole purport of the plaintiff Nos. 1 of the court of first instance as a result of the examination of the plaintiff Nos. 1 of the court of first instance, as an employee of defendant Eul, the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 3 were found first at the risk of losing the ownership of the apartment of this case due to the process of compulsory auction, and the plaintiffs introduced