1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of this judgment by the court of first instance is as follows, and the reasoning of this judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment by the court of first instance, in addition to the dismissal of the corresponding part of the judgment by the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be admitted including the summary thereof under the main sentence of Article 420 of the

[Attachment] Part 3] Part 14 and 15 of the first instance court's decision are as follows: "No dispute over [Grounds for Recognition] exists; Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 11 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply); Eul evidence No. 1; Eul evidence No. 1; Gap evidence No. 4 video and the purport of the whole pleadings."

Part 5 of the first instance court's decision "Evidence submitted by the plaintiffs" is "A, 5, 11, 13, 19, 20 each of the statements of evidence Nos. 3, 5, 11, 13, 19, 20, and evidence Nos. 4 and 6."

On the 6th of the judgment of the first instance court, the term "does" and "the greenhouse of this case" shall be added to "the structures owned by the defendant".

The first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s “the purport of the entire pleadings” is as follows: “A evidence Nos. 7, 16, 21 through 23, 28, 33, 35 through 37, each image of evidence Nos. 8, 34, the first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’

Part 7 of the 8th judgment of the first instance court is in accordance with the following subparagraphs: "B" through 12.

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 17, 17, and 12, it is recognized that the Plaintiffs sold the instant detached house to K on March 15, 2018 at KRW 600,00,000 for the land and the instant detached house on the ground thereof, Echeon-si. However, if a tort is damaged, if it is possible to repair or restore it, the repair cost or the cost of restoration shall be deemed ordinary damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da44633, Apr. 28, 2006). As such, even if the Plaintiffs, after the fire of this case, the instant detached house after the fire of this case, were the amount equivalent to the market price or the market price thereof.

The sale was made in high amount.

Even if any, this is.