1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasons stated by this court, such as the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance, are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the additional determination of the Defendants’ new arguments, as provided in paragraph (2). Thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 4

(except for the part against Defendant E and G with which separation is confirmed). 2. Additional determination

A. The defendant foundation argues that the liability of the defendant foundation should be mitigated in accordance with Article 765 of the Civil Code, considering the fact that there is negligence with regard to the accident of this case, ① it is reasonable to limit the liability of the defendant foundation under the principle of equity in consideration of the inherent risk in water of this case and the negligence of the defendant foundation, etc. ② The defendant foundation's negligence is minor. However, according to the facts acknowledged above, it is difficult to view that the negligence of the defendant foundation, which is the perpetrator, is not gross negligence (no error is committed against the plaintiffs who are the victim) and the damage of the plaintiff caused by the accident of this case, it is not reasonable to limit the liability of the defendant foundation or reduce the amount of damages. Thus, the above argument of the defendant foundation is without merit.

B. The defendant company argued to the effect that the defendants should set their respective shares of the defendants' liability for damages incurred by the plaintiffs to prevent any additional dispute over the relation of indemnity. However, apart from setting the specific shares of liability according to the degree of negligence through an agreement or a separate lawsuit among the defendants, the defendants (including the co-defendant G of the first instance court) are jointly and severally liable for damages incurred by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case as joint tort pursuant to Article 760 (1) of the Civil Act. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant company is well-grounded.