1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance except for partial revision as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 42

o In the judgment of the first instance court, the part on the "2. The parties' assertion" and "3. Judgment" concerning "the decrease in the exchange value of apartment buildings of this case, the plaintiffs' consolation money, and the delayed compensation due to the non-performance of the conciliation obligation of this case" is deleted.

o Part 10 of the 17th judgment of the first instance court is subject to the presumption of "the presumption" in the 17th judgment.

o. On November 7, 2014, when the lawsuit of this case was pending, the plaintiffs filed an agreement between the defendants and some of the apartment residents of this case (39 of the plaintiffs 50 who filed the first lawsuit of this case) on November 7, 2014, and the lawsuit was withdrawn. The above agreement between the apartment residents and the defendants was determined to include the portion of damages due to unfair provisional seizure or exempted from the part of the claim. Thus, the plaintiffs are liable to pay 110,000 of the total amount of damages due to unfair provisional seizure against the defendant L.

The facts that 39 persons from the initial plaintiffs were agreed with the defendants and withdrawn the lawsuit are as seen earlier.

However, the plaintiffs did not consent to the above agreement, and multiple liability for damages caused by a joint tort constitutes a joint and several liability. Since the effect of exemption in a joint and several liability is limited to relative effect, it cannot be deemed that the effect of exemption on other debtors even if the victim renounced his/her right to compensation for damages or expressed his/her intent to waive his/her obligation to one of the debtors (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19378, Jan. 27, 2006).