1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the Plaintiff and the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the appointed parties, E, F, G, H, BT, BU, BV, BW, and X.

1. The reasons why this Court shall explain are as follows: (a) add to paragraph (2) the original and the Defendant’s decision on the matters asserted in the trial; and (b) add to the relevant part of the judgment of the first instance except for the dismissal of the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance as follows; and (c) refer as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 17, Part 12, “A 43” is invaded by “A 27, 43,” and “7” in Part 19, followed by “82”.

The testimony of witness Q in Part 6 of Part 19 is raised as "E" in Part 11 of Part 23 as "A testimony of witness Q Q in the first instance trial, witness BR in the first instance trial, and part of HP's testimony." The appeal of this case is pending in the final appeal against the present judgment. However, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment of the final appeal against the present judgment on November 15, 2012 (201Do12878) and confirmed as it is. The appeal of this case was filed against "A is pending in the final appeal against the present judgment," in Part 18 of Part 23, "No. 23, while the Supreme Court appealed against this case, the part of the claim for delayed damages is reversed on November 15, 2012, and the remaining appeal of the court below that the plaintiff is the actual owner of the forest land is dismissed, and the remaining appeal of the court below is dismissed as to "No. 385,586," and the remaining appeal of this case is remanded as to "No 2012,586,".

1) On November 30, 2006, the market price as of November 30, 2006 as of the real estate listed in paragraph 34 of the attached Table 34 is 542,080,000, and on December 31, 2009, the total market price as of December 31, 2009 is 1,759,616,000, as seen earlier, the market price as of December 31, 2009 is 1,759,616,000. The market price as of December 31, 2009 is 1,759,616,000.

2. The defendant asserts comparative negligence, and the plaintiff's intentional tort committed by the defendant and the designated parties.