The costs of lawsuit arising from the appeal by the plaintiffs are assessed against the plaintiffs and the costs of lawsuit arising from the defendant's appeal.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant, and the adjudication of provisional execution (other than plaintiff 2, the remaining plaintiffs except plaintiff 2 have reduced the purport of the claim in the first instance).

The defendant shall pay 7,00,000 won to the plaintiff 1 and 500,000 won to the plaintiff 2, and 3,4,5,6, and7 each amount of 300,000 won and 5% per annum from June 26, 1979 to the full payment system.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant in both the first and second instances, and a declaration of provisional execution.

Litigation costs are assessed against all of the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

In light of the above evidence of No. 1, No. 2 (Medical Certificate), No. 1, No. 2 (Electric Accident Report), and No. 2 (Self-Finding Report), and the testimony of Non-Party 1 and No. 2 (except for the parts not believed to be the witness from the above witness) without the dispute, if the plaintiff 1 collected the whole purport of the pleadings by installing the above 3-mentioned electric wire at the location of the above 1, No. 3, the above-mentioned electric wire at the location of the above 4, which is not known to the residents of the above 1, and the fact that the above 1, No. 4, the above-mentioned electric wire was installed at the location of the above 1, No. 3, the above-mentioned electric wire at the location of the above 5, and the fact that the above 1, No. 4, the above-mentioned electric wire was installed at the location of the above 1, and the above 1,5,000 square meters high distance between the above 2, which was installed on the rooftop.

According to the above facts, it is evident that this accident was caused by the defect in the installation and preservation as mentioned above of the above electric wires owned and managed by the defendant. Thus, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident. Meanwhile, according to the above evidence, the above plaintiff was aware of the fact that the electric wire is passing at the accident point, and thus, he must pay attention to the fact that the above accident occurred due to the fact that the above accident occurred due to the mistake in failing to pay attention, although he did not have contact with the above electric wire, since the above plaintiff was aware of the fact that the electric wire is passing at the accident point, and thus he has to install a hack pipe that is easy to be detected against the dangerous high-tension electric wire. Thus, the above plaintiff's negligence does not seem to have reached the extent of exemption from the defendant's liability for damages due to the accident, so it is difficult to consider the scope of its liability for damages.

2. Scope of damages.

(a) Loss from profit;

If the above evidence Nos. 1-1 and 1-2 (resident, etc.'s copy), Gap evidence Nos. 3-1, 2-2 (Simplified Life Table), and Gap evidence Nos. 8-1 and 2 (construction price) and the whole purport of the oral argument as a result of physical examination of Park Jong-hee's body by the appraiser of the court below, the plaintiff Nos. 1 were born on August 27, 1940, and he was a male of the ordinary health body who left 38 years old and 9 months old at the time of this accident, his average life expectancy was 36 years, and the above plaintiff lost 78 percent of the ordinary labor ability due to this accident, and the daily wages of ordinary workers around June 1979 are 4,50 won per day, 50 won per day, 1980 won per day, and 305,50 won per day until the time of this accident, it cannot be acknowledged otherwise by the rule of experience.

According to the above facts, if the above plaintiff did not have an accident, he was engaged in urban daily labor at least 17 months (206 months) from the date of the accident until the age of 55 until the end of the above plaintiff's age, and was able to obtain monthly income from his domicile at least 78 percent of his monthly income due to a decrease in the labor ability as seen earlier due to the accident. The above plaintiff sought to pay all of the above losses that occurred monthly, at the time of the accident, at the time of the accident, at the rate of 5/12% per month, which is stipulated in the Civil Code, and at the time of the accident, at the present price at the time of the accident, it shall be 16,43,99 won per annum (206 months). The plaintiff's assertion that the above plaintiff's above plaintiff's losses should not be accepted in the above urban labor case on the premise that he would be able to obtain profits from his daily work after this accident, but he shall not be able to calculate the above urban labor profit from the above urban labor group.

(b) Medical expenses;

If the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 4-1 through 8 (Treatment Expense Statement) and Nos. 5-1 through 8 (each simplified import account statement) are recognized to have been filed by the testimony of non-party 1, the witness of the court below, and the witness testimony of the above witness and the witness of the court below's witness's body appraisal result, the above plaintiff was suffering from injury due to the accident and received hospitalized treatment from the Incheon Mono Hospital located in Incheon City, to September 1, 1979, and paid 4,700,910 won with the expenses of hospitalized treatment. The above plaintiff's pre-feassive cut from the left-hand part of the treatment that occurred after being treated as above cannot be acknowledged to have spent a short-term repair due to multiple alcohol, and there is no counter-fassive amount to be incurred by the above plaintiff in total 90,700 won. Accordingly, the above amount is equivalent to 90 won.

(c) Land substitutions;

If the contents stated in Gap evidence No. 6 (Simplified Tax Invoice) which is acknowledged to be genuine by the testimony of the above witness, the testimony of the above witness, and the whole purport of the pleading as a result of physical appraisal of the above witness's body, the above plaintiff cut the two arms as seen in the above, and the above plaintiff did not wear both booms during the life period. The above plaintiff purchased one set of 600,000 won on October 2, 1979 after the completion of treatment due to the accident of this case, and used 600,000 won for the purchase of 120,000 won for each of the two sides of high class, and the above plaintiff paid 120,000 won for the second class of 1 punishment which the above plaintiff needs to do so.

According to the above facts, the above plaintiff suffered damages that should be paid in 120,000 won every five years from October 1, 1984, in addition to the expenses already paid in 600,000 won for the purchase of the land due to the accident, and the above plaintiff is seeking to pay the damages in lump sum at the time of the accident. Thus, since the above plaintiff is seeking to pay the damages in lump sum at the time of the accident, it shall be paid in 1,035,499 won as shown in the attached Table 2, after deducting the interim legal interest at the rate of 5% per annum per annum at the time of the accident.

(d) Nursing expenses;

According to the testimony of Non-party 1 and the above appraiser's physical appraisal result of the above appraiser's death, the above plaintiff can be acknowledged that the above plaintiff was forced to cut the booms of both sides due to the accident and should not receive assistance from adults in their daily lives, such as water, bath, meal, urine treatment, etc. for the future life during the remaining life period, and there is no other counter-proof. The wage of adult male working in September 1980 nearest at the time of the conclusion of this case was 5,780 per day as seen above. Thus, the above plaintiff's 34 years from the date of the conclusion of this case's argument to the above plaintiff's life from the date of this case's accident to the date of the above plaintiff's life (at the request of the above plaintiff, less than a year in the calculation of expenses), and the above plaintiff's 2,109,700 won should be paid at the expense of 2,109,700 won per annum 3681,2964,6700

(e) Negligence offsetting;

Therefore, property damage suffered by the above plaintiff due to the accident in this case is KRW 61,223,571 (16,43,99 +4,99 +4,907,910 +1,035,499 +38,846,163) including the above amount of money recognized as above. However, considering the above plaintiff's negligence, it is reasonable to determine the amount of damage to be compensated by the defendant as KRW 35,00,000.

F. The plaintiffs' consolation money

The plaintiff 1 suffered from the above injury in this case, and the plaintiff 1 suffered from the above injury, and it can be easily recognized in light of the empirical rule that the remaining plaintiffs as well as the above plaintiff suffered from considerable mental suffering, so the defendant is obligated to pay it in cash. Thus, considering all circumstances revealed in the arguments in this case, such as the plaintiffs' age, family relation, educational degree, background of this case, degree of injury, degree of injury of the plaintiff 1, and degree of negligence, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money to be compensated by the defendant as 1,00, 500,000 won for the plaintiff 2, and 200,000 won for each of the remaining plaintiffs.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 36,00,000 won (property damages amounting to 35,000,000 won + 1,000,000 won + 500,000 won respectively), to the plaintiff 2, each of the remaining plaintiffs, and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum of the Civil Code from June 26, 1979 to the full payment system as claimed by the plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and it is dismissed as the remainder is without merit. The judgment of the court below is just as such, and all of the appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Judge)