1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

(b).

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff jointly filed a claim for the payment of damages amounting to KRW 103,527,230 (affirmative damages amounting to KRW 3,527,230,000 for negative damages amounting to KRW 50,000 for solatium amounting to KRW 50,000 for damages amounting to KRW 103,527,230 for the Defendants, and the first instance court dismissed all of them.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the Defendants only for the claim for payment of damages amounting to KRW 50,000 (20,000,000,000, which is part of the above passive damages amounting to KRW 26,472,770, which is part of the above passive damages).

Therefore, the subject of this Court's adjudication is limited to the claims filed by the plaintiff.

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except when the court cites or adds the following, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court is justifiable and there is no error as alleged by the Plaintiff as the grounds for appeal). Each of the "2017." of the second, fourth, and fifth, first, first, first, first, and fifth, first, first and fifth, second, and fifth, second, third, and fifth, first, shall be dismissed as "2018."

The following shall be added to the first instance judgment of No. 14 of the first instance judgment.

"The plaintiff asserts that there is an error in the results of the appraisal because the above physical appraisal is appropriate for the strength of the virtual bargaining without accurately recognizing the pressure bargaining (see the plaintiff's statement of grounds of appeal as of February 24, 2020, see the above physical appraisal result, see the plaintiff's statement of grounds of appeal as of February 24, 2020, the above appraisal provides an explanation that if the "the above physical appraisal" was the adequate pressure in the contents of the pressure bargaining, it is not highly likely to cause a sudden fluority.

‘The causal relationship between pressure bargaining and acute bordering' is the causal relationship.