1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff who cited the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance contains evidence Nos. 57 through 60 submitted additionally by this court, the fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance are deemed legitimate

Accordingly, the court's explanation of this case is to change "each description and image of Gap evidence Nos. 12 through 15, 17, and 46" to "Evidence Nos. 12 through 15, 17, 46, Eul evidence No. 5 (including paper numbers), each description and image of Gap evidence No. 12 through 15, 17, 46, and the result of response to each order to submit financial transaction information to the company bank and E Bank of this court" among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and No. 3, No. 16.

2.(a)

2) Paragraph (2) is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the case being cut off as described below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2) However, in a tort, the burden of proving the existence of harmful act by intention or negligence, the occurrence of damage, and the causal relationship between such act and the occurrence of damage lies in the claimant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da92272, Mar. 25, 2010). In view of the following circumstances, even if considering that the degree of proof in a civil lawsuit is more mitigated than a criminal case, the foregoing facts and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize that the Defendants stolen the checks or cash in custody of the Plaintiff at the residence of the Plaintiff.

① Although the Plaintiff appears to have kept checks or cash in the place of residence, it is difficult to specify the exact amount or period.

② Since the deposit or consumption of the money with which the source of the Defendants’ account is unknown increased, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s money was stolen immediately, and there is no ground to specify the amount.

③ The description of evidence No. 58 alone is referred to as “floitial farmer” in the key of floiting.