1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The court’s explanation concerning this case is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance as stated in the judgment of the first instance, except for dismissal or addition of the reasons as follows. Thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as it is, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

A. The main part (Nos. 1 through 4), however, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the oil leaked from the oil tanker of this case reached the lurri coast, and rather, according to the statements Nos. 3 and 5, the public officials in charge of Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, the public officials in charge of Seocheon-gun, on Dec. 29, 2007, even though the North-do wind was somewhat strong, did not discover tar floating at the coast on a non-personal surface, and around Jan. 15:20 on Jan. 4, 2008, after conducting preventive observations of tar flow on the lurri coast, there was no evidence to acknowledge that the oil leaked from the oil tanker of this case reached the lurri coast, and on Jan. 15:20, 2008, only it can be recognized that tar tar moh was not found.

B. In addition, the facts that Plaintiff S, T, U,V, W, X, and AJ were residing in Chungcheongnam-do D or DE, the oil pollution area at the time of the instant accident do not conflict between the above Plaintiffs and the Defendant International Fund, or are recognized by the purport of the entire pleadings. However, in light of the background leading up to the selection of a person subject to investigation into the damage by the first hand fishery and the group classification, the above Plaintiffs classified as Type No. 3 may be acknowledged as a person engaged in the first hand fishery only by submitting objective evidence. The damage report prepared by the head of fishing village fraternity or village among the evidence submitted by the above Plaintiffs is deemed as having maintained their livelihood while engaging in the first hand fishery. However, if the purport of the supplement of the statement was examined as a whole, the above damage report is deemed as working at the workplace or engaging in any other occupation.