The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, and a judgment of provisional execution

Around 17:00 on February 19, 1978, the Defendant used the cargo transport and its ancillary business. At the same time, the Defendant: (a) around 17:00 on the port side of the supplies line of the Defendant Company for export to load the Defendant Company’s cargo on its truck owned by the Defendant Company; (b) there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Defendant died due to the fall of the board; (c) the entries of the evidence No. 2 of the lower court without dispute as to the establishment of the evidence No. 2 of the Defendant’s name (excluding the portion of testimony that is not believed later); and (d) the testimony of the lower court (excluding the portion of which it is not trusted) and the first instance court’s opinion that all the arguments for the verification of the site of the goods on which the Defendant used to load the goods on the ground and caused the Defendant to open the 2.5 meters wide and 30 centimeters wide from the front side of the goods on the ground to load the goods on the ground, and there is no concern that the Defendant may open the 3rd.

Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the above non-party deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the defect in the installation and preservation of the above shot board, which is a structure his possession. Meanwhile, according to the above evidence, if the above non-party deceased paid close attention so that it could not be able to prevent the above accident in advance or at least caused the death, it shall be deemed that the above non-party deceased was negligent in the occurrence of the accident. However, since it is recognized that the above negligence does not reach the extent of exemption from the defendant's liability for damages, it shall be considered only in calculating the damages amount of this case.

2. Determination on the scope of liability for damages

(a) Actual profits;

If the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 5 (Insurance Benefit Ledger), 6 (Simplified Life Table), and 7 (No. 7) are combined with each of the statements in the formation of the case, it can be recognized that the average remaining 22.17 years old at the time of the accident of this case as a male of August 2, 1928, who was born on August 2, 1928, and whose average remaining 22.17 years old at the time of the accident of this case, he/she was engaged in daily transportation work at the time of the accident of this case and received 3,751 won average wages at the time of the accident, and there is no counter-proof. On the other hand, it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the daily work of transportation may be carried out by the time of age of 55,00 won a month, and there is no dispute between the parties to this case.

Thus, it is apparent that the above credit union might have obtained the income of 78,775 won (3,751x25-15,000 won) each month after deducting the income of 78,775 won (3,751x25-15,000 won) from the time of 55 years of age, unless there are special circumstances, if the credit union did not die due to the accident of this case, it is obvious that the above credit union would have obtained the income of 78,775 won (3,751x25-15,00 won) for the next 66 months of age, as the plaintiffs claimed, after deducting the interim interest of 5/12% per month in order to pay the income in a lump sum as of the time of the death of the Dong, the above credit union shall be calculated as 4,584,649 won (78,75x58.193 won). However, the plaintiffs shall comply with this.

However, as recognized above, since the accident of this case was negligent on the part of the above women who are the victim, the amount that the defendant is liable to compensate for should be determined as KRW 2,300,000,000. However, according to the contents of Gap evidence No. 7, it is reasonable to determine the above women's wife as the above women's wife is the above women's wife, and since the same women's wife is recognized as the Dong's person, the plaintiffs died, and thus, they inherited the property. According to the inheritance ratio, according to the inheritance ratio, the plaintiff Jeong son's wife belongs to KRW 575,00,000 and KRW 1,725,000 for the same women's wife.

B. The consolation money for the plaintiffs

As seen above, since the above women's Haak-gu died of the above women's accident, and the plaintiff's Haak-gu is recognized as the wife of the Haak-gu, and in light of our experience that the plaintiff's Haak-gu suffered enormous mental suffering, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money equivalent to the plaintiffs' above mental suffering. Thus, the defendant is reasonable to pay consolation money as consolation money if we consider the circumstances of the accident, the degree of negligence between the Haak-gu and the defendant, the plaintiffs' status relationship, and all other circumstances shown in the plaintiffs' arguments, which are acknowledged as evidence, as consolation money, if we consider the above circumstances, such as the situation of the accident, the degree of negligence between the Haak-gu and the defendant, and the plaintiffs' status relationship, etc.

(c) Deductions from bereaved family benefits;

Therefore, as the sum of the above property damage and consolation money, the defendant should pay 1,925,00 won to the plaintiff Jong-gu to the same so-called Y. On the other hand, if the contents of Eul evidence No. 1 without dispute over the establishment are combined with the whole purport of the pleading, the plaintiffs can be recognized that the defendant paid 3,751,50 won for the lump-sum survivors' compensation benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, which is the insured, and there is no other counter-proof, and therefore, the above inheritance ratio belongs to the plaintiff Jong-gu and 93.87,813,62 won for the same so-called Hagu, and the lump-sum survivors' compensation benefits under the above law are received by the plaintiffs, who are the right holder of the right to receive the lump-sum survivors' compensation benefits under the above law, and the defendant who is the insured, is not obligated to pay the above amount to the plaintiff within the limit of the amount of the compensation for damages under the Civil Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case shall be dismissed because they are without merit. Since the judgment of the court below is just in its conclusion, the plaintiffs' appeal against this is dismissed as without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs who have lost them.

Judges Lee Ho-ho (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)