The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff 1, excluding the above consolation money portion, shall be reversed, and the part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

(A) We examine the grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s attorney.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that this accident occurred while the defendant operated his automobile for himself, and that the negligence of the plaintiff 1 was also processed at the time of the occurrence of the accident, and that the above plaintiff's negligence should be considered in calculating the amount of damages for the defendant's accident. Then, in calculating the amount of damages equivalent to the cost of prevention and treatment of pre-exploitation caused by damage to the plaintiff's two parts, which can be claimed at the time of the accident, the pre-exploitation of pre-exploitation due to the damages caused by the pre-exploitation of the accident requires preventive treatment because the pre-exploitation of pre-exploitation of the accident is impossible, and the above cost of prevention and treatment is required every 9,00 won per month for the pre-exploitation of the damages for 45 years and 50 months (540 months) as of the date of the accident, the court below held that the above expenses for pre-exploitation of treatment should be calculated for 10 won and 40.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant as to the above plaintiff's property damage is not reversed, and as to the calculation of damages equivalent to the amount of future medical expenses such as this case, the previous judgment of the court below against the above purport of the judgment of the court below (76Da1782 delivered on September 14, 1976) shall be reversed by this judgment.

(B) Of the judgment of the court below, Plaintiff 1’s acceptance of consolation money (the part ordering payment of 300,000 won and 5% interest rate per annum from April 2, 1976 to the full payment date) did not include the grounds of appeal in the petition of appeal, and the above grounds of appeal are not stated in the grounds of appeal. Thus, the appeal on this part shall not be dismissed.

2. The defendant's appeal against plaintiff 2 through 4 is examined.

Although the defendant filed a lawful appeal against the above plaintiffs, there is no indication of the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal, and there is no indication of the grounds for appeal in the appellate brief, each of the above appeals shall not be dismissed.

3. Accordingly, the costs of appeal against each of the above dismissal are assessed against the losing parties. The part of the judgment below against the defendant as to Plaintiff 1’s property damage shall be reversed, and the part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court which is the original judgment.

It is consistent with the opinion of the judge involved in this judgment.

Justices Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice)

Justices Ahn Byung-soo et al. cannot sign and seal by overseas business trip