1. Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance, including a claim added or modified in the trial, is as follows.

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is identical to the part concerning the principal suit in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following reasons. Thus, the court's explanation concerning this case is acceptable pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Each “Plaintiff C” in the judgment of the first instance is dismissed as “the network C”, and the “child C” in the 8th and 11th of the judgment of the first instance is considered as “child C, and C was dead on November 27, 2019 and succeeded by Plaintiff A.”

From March 23, 2017, Plaintiff A received 624,00,000 won from Defendant D through around March 23, 2017, and distributed 30,000,000 won for Z as well as 20,000 won for AA as a total of 674,00,000 won from them, and deleted 3) from the 8th judgment of the first instance. If Defendant D had a duty to pay 10,00,000 won for Z as follows. Defendant A and 10,00 won for 10,000 won for 10,000 won for Z and 10,000 won for 10,000 won for Z and 10,00 won for 10,000 won for Y and 10,000 won for Y and 10,000 won for delayed payment for Defendant E and 100,300,000 won for Y and 10.

(2) Preliminaryly, the Plaintiffs did not agree with the plan to distribute 30% of the agreed amount to the Defendants’ share, and the Defendants were refusing to refund the shares of KRW 430,000,000 out of the agreed amount (i.e., shares of KRW 360,000,000 to the Defendants’ share of KRW 40,000,000, and other personnel expenses for KRW 20,000,000. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs suffered damages equivalent to the same amount, and thus, the Defendants were entitled to the second preliminary tort compensation.