1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications to some contents.

(except for the part against the co-defendant H in the first instance court which is separated or finalized). The 4th 10 portion of the first instance judgment “(the defendants, from “,” to “(14).” shall be written in the following manner:

“The Defendant alleged to the effect that the instant seeds did not belong to “stoma” as it did not directly sell the seeds of this case to the Deceased.

However, in a civil trial, even if it is not bound by the finding of facts in the criminal trial, the fact that the criminal judgment already became final and conclusive is material to prove the same fact. Thus, barring any special circumstance where it is deemed difficult to adopt the judgment of facts in the criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da24276, Sept. 30, 1997). Although the defendant and the co-defendant H of the first instance trial knew that the country of origin is not a 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's', which is a Japanese 's 's 's 's 's ',' the defendant and the co-defendant H of the first instance trial knew that the 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's ' 's 's ' 's 's '

In the meantime, the Defendant asserted that the deceased’s negligence should be offset by negligence in calculating the amount of damages, since the Defendant purchased the seeds of this case with knowledge that the seeds of this case were not refined.