All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. As to the assertion that the liability for damages was extinguished due to the debt collection, the lower court determined that the damage claim was not extinguished despite each of the above claims collection claims, on the ground that the balance of each of the claims in the instant judgment remaining after compulsory execution exceeds the amount that the Defendant is liable for compensation, although I or his heir or H collected part of the claims through the seizure and collection order from E with the title of execution of the claims under each of the instant judgment.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the aforementioned determination by the lower court is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by failing to exhaust

B. As to the assertion that the damage claim has expired by prescription, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the damage claim of this case expired by prescription on the ground that there was no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) was aware of the damage and the perpetrator on November 18, 2013, on which the first instance court found the Defendant guilty of evasion of compulsory execution against the Defendant, and that there was no other evidence to prove that the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) was aware of the Defendant’s tort three years prior to the date of the filing of the instant lawsuit.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by failing

2...