1. The Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendants and the claim for damages added to Defendant B in the trial.

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is that the plaintiff's assertion is not sufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion as evidence to be additionally submitted in the trial. The court rejected the plaintiff's testimony from Gap's evidence Nos. 27 to 33 (including each number), and witness F of the trial court's witness of the trial. The court's reasoning is the same as the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments as to the cause of the plaintiff's additional claim in the trial. Thus, it is acceptable

【Defendant B’s assertion that the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the total amount of the construction price, regardless of the completion of the instant structural construction, because the Plaintiff and his father were found to have been killed by using complete force and violence at the site of the instant structural construction. However, as to whether Defendant B, including the Plaintiff, had forced the Plaintiff to go into force at the site of the instant structural construction, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff stated the Plaintiff’s assertion. The Plaintiff’s statement as to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 8 is difficult to believe in light of the fact that the Plaintiff, as the originator, stated that the F was a witness at the trial and did not know of the accurate contents, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it as evidence. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s argument is without merit. Accordingly, the first instance judgment is justifiable, all appeals against the Defendants are dismissed, and the Plaintiff’s additional claim against the Defendant B is also dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.