1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants and the plaintiff's claim expanded by this court are all dismissed.

2...

1. On August 2, 2018, the Plaintiff visited Defendant B’s house, the husband of Defendant B, who is the husband of Defendant B, to take charge of the race of the race of the race of the race of the race of the race of the race of the race of the race of the race of the race of the Plaintiff, and the body of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) visited Defendant C, the husband of Defendant B, who is the husband of Defendant B, to open a door; (b) was pushed down with Defendant B; and (c) was pushed back with Defendant C, thereby pushing ahead of the chill of the eroporo, tension and tension; (d) was inflicted on the erode of the erode, the erode of the erode, the erode of the eroke;

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 4,627,690 [the total amount of KRW 1,098,190 for non-business suspension damage of KRW 2,029,50 for medical treatment costs” [the daily average daily wage of KRW 109,819,000 for KRW 100,00 for non-business suspension costs per day) and damages for delay.]

2. First of all, we examine whether the Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by joint tort, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is difficult to ascertain whether the Defendants specifically exercised the physical exercise in certain circumstances to the Plaintiff at the time of the instant case, and according to the purport of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 16, each of the evidence Nos. 1, 2-2, 2-2, 3, 4, 5, 16, the whole pleadings, and the whole purport of the pleadings, the following: ① the closure of the 112-Report Handling List recorded at the time of the instant case is indicated as the “on-site adjustment” in the column of the 112-Report Handling List recorded at the time of the instant case as the “on-site adjustment is not a dispute with the Plaintiff’s injury.”