1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part of the damages incurred by the maintenance disbursement to the Defendants is modified as follows.

The plaintiff filed a claim against the defendants and the co-defendant X, Y, AF BE, and 68 others for damages for fixed costs incurred by the defendants' illegal industrial action (50,275,885 won) and damages for medical expenses incurred by the defendants' bodily injury (6,481,200 won).

On the other hand, the court of the first instance recognized the damages for fixed costs due to the illegal industrial action of the co-defendants of the second instance except the defendants and B (25,137,941 won by offsetting 50% by negligence), and the damages for the treatment expenses incurred due to the injury of the co-defendants of the second instance except the defendants and B (3,240,600 won by offsetting 50% by negligence), and dismissed the claims against B.

Accordingly, among the Defendants and the co-defendants of the first instance trial, the Plaintiff appealed against X, Y, AF, and BE (hereinafter “Co-defendants of the second instance”), and the Defendants and co-defendants of the second instance.

The court of the first instance prior to remand recognized the defendants' illegal industrial action (which did not recognize the responsibility of the co-defendants of the second instance court), but did not recognize all fixed costs, dismissed this part of the claim, and recognized the compensation for damages, such as medical expenses, etc. (3,240,600 won by offsetting 50% by negligence), but did not recognize the rest of the defendants and co-defendants of the second instance court's co-defendants' participation in the injury.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance was revoked, and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed, except for the portion of payment of KRW 3,240,600.

Accordingly, the plaintiff, defendant Q and R appealed, and the Supreme Court recognized the defendants' illegal industrial action (as to the judgment of the court of the second instance prior to the remand that did not recognize the responsibility of the co-defendants), reversed and remanded the judgment of the court prior to the remand that did not recognize the loss of fixed costs, and offset the damages incurred by the injury of the defendant Q and R by 50% of the negligence of 3,240.