1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Defendants is modified as follows. A.

Plaintiff

A, Defendant E shall be the first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation in this part is as follows: (a) each of the “Defendant C” under Section 11 of the judgment of the court of first instance is “C”; (b) each of the “Defendant D” is “D”; and (c) each of the “Defendant F” is “F”, and the “Defendant G” is the same as the part of the “1. Facts recognized” among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except where each of the “G” is used, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The reasons why this court should explain in this part are as follows: (a) each “Defendant C” of not more than 5 pages 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance is “C”; (b) each “Defendant D” is “D”; (c) each “Defendant F” is “F”; and (d) each “Defendant G” is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where each “Defendant G” is used as “G,” and thus, it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, it is cited in accordance

3. Scope of liability for damages

A. 1) In a case where the victim was negligent with respect to the occurrence or expansion of damages due to a tort by relevant legal doctrine, the scope of the tortfeasor’s damages should be taken into account as a matter of course in determining the scope of the tortfeasor’s damages. In a case where a person liable for damages did not assert the victim’s negligence, the court should ex officio examine and determine the scope of the damages where the tort is recognized by litigation materials (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da3013, Oct. 25, 1996; 2008Da51120, Aug. 20, 209). However, in a case where a harmful act is an act of acquisition, such as embezzlement, etc., the perpetrator would ultimately possess profits from the tort and may result in a violation of the principle of equity or the good faith. In such a case, comparative negligence is not allowed (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da1146, Sept. 26, 2013).