1. Plaintiff F’s appeal against Defendant BJ, BK, BM, and BO, Plaintiff Q, AS, and AU respectively against Defendant BR, BS, BT, BU, and BV.

1. The reasons why the court's reasoning for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be used as follows; and (b) the judgment of the plaintiff F, Q, AS, and AU (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff F, etc.") and the defendant BJ, BT, and BU's argument shall be added as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of the judgment of the plaintiff F, Q, AS, and BU (hereinafter referred to as "the above plaintiffs") and the judgment of the defendant BJ, BT, and BU as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (excluding the part related only to the plaintiff L of the court of first instance and the joint defendants of the court of first instance who

2. Parts to be dried;

(a) The part of the first instance court’s decision No. 20 of the first instance court’s ruling “each limit shall be limited,” stating, “Although considering all the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff F up to the trial and the evidence submitted therefrom, the foregoing ratio of comparative negligence is not deemed to be considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity, and circumstances to recognize otherwise cannot be discovered).”

B. Article 20-21 of the judgment of the court of first instance provides that “The fact that the present trial is in progress [the fact that the present trial is in progress] portion of the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2012Da2243, 3760 (Joint)] is “the fact that the judgment of the crime of oil has become final and conclusive (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2012Dadan2243, etc., Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2014No403, 2014Do9127).”

C. Article 24 of the first instance court’s decision provides that “Each restriction shall be placed,” stating that “The circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff Q, AS, and AU up to each trial and the evidence submitted therefrom shall be taken into account, even if all of the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff Q, AS, and AU up to each trial and the evidence submitted, the foregoing ratio of comparative negligence shall not be deemed considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity, and any other circumstance to acknowledge it shall not be discovered).”

3. Additional determination

A. Plaintiff F et al.’s assertion on Plaintiff F et al.