1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

3. The plaintiff net BY, .

1. Based on the litigation materials and pleading materials submitted to the appellate court citing the judgment of the first instance, the grounds of the judgment of the first instance (such as law, judicial precedents, interpretation and application of legal principles, recognition of facts and facts requiring proof, and judgment on the issues, etc.), as a result of the determination of issues in accordance with the precedents, legal principles, and evidence rules, including Supreme Court Decisions 2014Da31837 Decided November 29, 2017, etc., are sufficiently reasonable.

The reasoning of this Court concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the first instance judgment is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the case where the parties make an additional determination as to the assertion specifically emphasized by the appellate court, so the attached Form 2 of the first instance judgment shall be replaced by the attached Form 2 of this judgment, and the attached Form 3 of the first instance judgment shall be added to the attached Form 3 of the first instance judgment, and the "Plaintiff" in attached Form 5 of the first instance judgment shall be as follows.

2. to 24."Plaintiff"

1. Each of the above Supreme Court Decisions 2014Da31837 Decided November 29, 2017, where the main issues of this case are the same, the court below's judgment was justified, which calculated the damages suffered by the above plaintiffs due to a series of illegal acts committed by the defendant from May 1, 1953 to October 11, 1979, as the market price of "pre- or answer, which is the current situation at the time of distribution as of December 31, 1998". The above calculation method is identical to the calculation method of damages of the first instance court, and since the defendant stated that the Supreme Court decision was made on December 4, 2017, the appellate court's judgment was made in accordance with the above purport, and thus, the judgment of the court of first instance as to the causation between tort and damage is not to be determined additionally.

2. The portion described additionally.