1. All appeals filed against the Defendants by the Plaintiff (Appointeds) and the Appointeds D are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 18, 2017, the Plaintiff (Appointeds; hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) and the Appointeds D (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) were returning back to the Republic of Korea after failing to keep the Mamerasian Doro (hereinafter “the instant Doro”) that the Plaintiffs raised in the Namyang-si, Namyang-si (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) around 12:00.

B. Defendant C, along with the same time husband, was passing through the same place without leaving a 2-maat dog (hereinafter “the instant dust dog”), which he raised with the same time husband. However, an accident occurred where the said dust dog was asked whether it was the subject of this case, thereby causing injury, such as the maat, etc.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”) C.

The Plaintiff spent KRW 8,154,550 as medical expenses for the instant area due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, 5, 7-9, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On March 28, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against only the Defendant B at the court of first instance, and filed a motion to add Defendant C to the ancillary Defendant during the proceeding of the lawsuit. On February 10, 2019, the Plaintiff submitted the Defendant’s application to the court of first instance, stating that “The Plaintiff would have reached the instant application pursuant to the main text of Article 70(1) and Article 68(1) of the Civil Procedure Act to add Defendant C to the ancillary Defendant.” On March 28, 2019, the Plaintiff stated that “The Plaintiff claimed Defendant B as the primary Defendant and the ancillary Defendant C as the primary Defendant at the sixth hearing date of the court of first instance at the court of first instance.”

Accordingly, the court of first instance tried and determined the case in the form of a subjective conjunctive co-litigation with the primary defendant B and the conjunctive defendant C.

However, the plaintiff asserts that this court is jointly and severally liable to pay damages to the plaintiffs, since the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay them.