1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant shall be revoked, and all the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is that “Plaintiff G70%” is deleted from No. 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and that part of the fifth [accident list] is the same as that of Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the change of the fifth [accident list] into the following table, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

[accident Table] A B CD E F H H HaJ L M NO Q Q R R K Z AB AF Au Au Au AM AM AbabbC BG BG M AE BG Q AE AAE BG Q AE BH

2. The assertion and judgment

A. After the repair due to each traffic accident in this case, each damaged vehicle owned by the plaintiffs, each of the plaintiffs' claims, reduced exchange value corresponding to each of the corresponding amounts stated in the column for claim for revocation in the separate sheet of claim in the separate sheet, and after the repair, defects such as noise, corrosion, color, etc. occurred, the defendant, who is the insurer of the damaged vehicle, is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the above damages.

In the first instance court, the Plaintiffs filed a claim against the Defendant for the appraisal cost in order to calculate the decline in the exchange value of each damaged vehicle owned by the Plaintiffs due to each traffic accident in this case and the amount of the decline in the exchange value of each damaged vehicle owned by the Plaintiffs, and the first instance court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs that partly dismissed the appraisal cost. Of the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the effect that only the Plaintiff K did not file an appeal to additionally claim the decline in the exchange value of each damaged vehicle owned by the Plaintiffs, and the Defendant did not file an appeal to the appraisal cost, and it is apparent in the record that each appeal was filed against the entire lost portion. Accordingly, only the claim for decline in exchange value, excluding the claim for the appraisal cost that the Plaintiffs

(b) the amount of damages that would be caused by a tort would be acceptable, if any.