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 of first instance’s explanation as to this case is as follows, except for the following determination as to the Plaintiffs’ additional assertion, the reasoning of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. Of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance, the prosecutor appealed against the first instance court’s judgment that “I” was pronounced not guilty in the first instance court and the second instance court (“I: the first instance court and the second instance court”) and the second instance judgment was rendered not guilty (Supreme Court Decision 2015Da1550 Decided February 18, 2016; Supreme Court Decision 2016No371 Decided December 15, 2016; Supreme Court Decision 2017Do589 Decided December 15, 2016; Supreme Court Decision 2017Do589 Decided December 4, 201; Supreme Court Decision 2015Da150 Decided February 18, 2016; Supreme Court Decision 2015Da1570 Decided March 16, 201; Supreme Court Decision 2015Da37179 Decided July 27, 2016).”

B. The part of the first instance judgment Nos. 6, 12, and 16 shall be reversed as follows.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 6,380,000 for property damage (i.e., KRW 1,200,000 for the monthly rent of KRW 3,500,000 for the registration fee of KRW 3,000 for the instant school, and KRW 20,000 for the monthly rent of KRW 280,400 for the amount of KRW 4,000 for the monthly rent of KRW 280,000 for the damages and KRW 20,000 for the consolation money and KRW 10,000 for the Plaintiff).

3. The Plaintiffs’ additional determination is fair as to the Defendants’ advertising activities on the employment rate of the pertinent school.