1. Of the part concerning the claim against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, the following amount is imposed.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as follows, and the part concerning the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal of part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows

(The main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act) / [Attachment] 3 to 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance: The defendant Asset Management Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Asset Management Corporation") argues to the effect that the defendant Asset Management Corporation does not bear employer liability against the plaintiffs on the ground that the defendant Asset Management Corporation has paid considerable attention to the supervision of the affairs of the defendant Asset Management Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Asset Management Corporation") on the ground of the judgment of first instance as follows: 10 of the grounds of the judgment of first instance:

However, as seen earlier, the G or F of the Defendant Asset Management Corporation was neglected in keeping and managing the corporate seal of the Defendant Asset Management Corporation that it uses.

In addition, the defendant Asset Management Corporation recognizes the fact of minor disciplinary action such as reprimand against the J, which is the team leader of the I Team to which defendant D belongs in relation to the illegal disposal of defendant D's state property.

Considering these circumstances, the Defendant Asset Management Corporation paid considerable attention to the supervision of Defendant D’s affairs solely with the evidence submitted.

Even if there were considerable attention, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiffs suffered damages.

Therefore, this part of Defendant Property Corporation’s defense of exemption cannot be accepted.

The grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance are 10 Myeon 14 to 11 Myeon 7: The whole of the reasons are as follows:

For the following reasons, Defendant D forged each sales contract for the first and second reasons.