1. The plaintiffs, the succeeding intervenors, the National Pension Service, and the independent party intervenors.

The reasoning for this Court's explanation is the same as that of "1. Basic Facts" between the third and fourth parties of the judgment of the court of first instance, except as follows. Thus, this Court shall accept it by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

After the fourth 10th decision of the first instance court, the Intervenor additionally paid KRW 598,240,000 to the Plaintiff A in total from May 2016 to March 2017.

A or evidence of No. 20 through 22 shall be added to the fourth decision of the first instance court (based on recognition) of No. 14.

This Court's reasoning is as follows. This Court's reasoning is as follows: "Judgment on the claim of the principal and the principal and the principal and the principal and the principal and the claim of the first instance court" between the fourth and fourteenth of the judgment of the court of the first instance. Therefore, this Court's reasoning is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the

G's 5th 19-20th 10th 1st 20th 1st 20th 20th 5th 20th 5th 1st 202.

The 6th to 6th of the judgment of the first instance court shall be followed as follows.

00:54:20 The defendant appears in the direction of the chief commissioner, towards the opposite letter in the vicinity of the center and re-sponsed in the direction of the chief commissioner. At this time, a pipe can be sold to a white cane while the white cane in the left side of the screen, and the defendant will be cut back once to the defendant.

(No. 6-7, No. 7-1), No. 10, No. 12-11 of the first instance judgment, and No. 11 of the first instance judgment, the part of the determination as to “(2) the third party was involved in the assault” is as follows.

(2) The plaintiffs asserted that the third party was involved in the assault was involved in the third party's possession of the cab at the time when the defendant and G first got off the cab of this case, and in addition, when considering that the defendant and the deceased appeared out of the third party's third party's possession of the booms video recorded around the time when the franchis occurred in the site of the accident of this case, I or J committed violence against the deceased in combination with the defendant, and the Seosan Police Station.