2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against all of the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

The fact that the defendant's liability for damages was established and the non-party 1's fault store, which is the victim, were admitted as a member of the party, is the same as the corresponding part of the original judgment.

Therefore, the defendant is responsible for compensating for all damages caused by the accident in this case, and in determining the amount of compensation, the non-party 1, the victim, should be deprived of the negligence.

2. Property losses;

(1) The plaintiff 2 was born on October 13, 1970 between the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 (the father of the non-party 1) and the non-party 1 (the non-party 1). The plaintiff 2, after his birth, filed a lawsuit claiming recognition of the non-party's child born, and filed a favorable judgment under the conditions as prescribed by the Family Register Act on September 10, 1971. The plaintiff acquired the status as the non-party 1 (the non-party 1) retroactively on October 13, 1970, and the non-party 1 was born on March 30, 1970, and it is reasonable to view that the non-party 2 was the non-party 1's property heir, who acquired the right to claim compensation for damages after his birth of the non-party 1 and the non-party 1, who acquired the right to claim compensation for damages after his birth of the non-party 1, who acquired the right to claim compensation for damages.

It is reasonable to interpret Article 1014 of the Civil Act as excluding the right acquired by a third party" under the proviso of Article 860 of the Civil Act in cases where a person who becomes a co-inheritors by acknowledgement after the commencement of inheritance or by the confirmation of a judgment, in cases where a claim for division of inherited property has already been filed by another co-inheritors, if other co-inheritors have a right to claim a payment of the equivalent amount of the inherited property if the other co-inheritors have already divided or disposed of the inheritance after the commencement of inheritance, and in cases where there is recognition after the commencement of inheritance, other co-inheritors have a right to claim a payment of the equivalent amount of the inherited property, and in cases where there is recognition after the commencement of inheritance, the right of inheritance acquired by a subordinate co-inheritors is excluded from the "right acquired by a third party" under the proviso of Article 860 of the Civil Act as i.e., the right of inheritance acquired by a third party after the commencement of inheritance. Therefore, if it is unreasonable to regard the right of inheritance to be acquired retroactively compared with the other co-inheritors who loses property.

Under this conclusion, the plaintiff 2 was born on October 13, 1970 between the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 (mother) as stated in the above facts without any dispute. The plaintiff 2, after his birth, filed a lawsuit claiming recognition of the non-party's child born, and filed a favorable judgment as prescribed by the Family Register Act on September 10, 1971. The plaintiff acquired the status of the non-party as the plaintiff's owner on October 13, 1970, which was born under the provision of the main sentence of Article 860 of the Civil Code. Since the plaintiff was born on October 13, 1970, the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were born on March 30, 1970, and the non-party 2 had no dispute over the above non-party 1's claim for damages by the non-party 4, the non-party 1 and the non-party 1's co-party 1's heir's non-party 1's claim for damages.

(2) Therefore, the non-party 1 will look at the property damages suffered by the accident in this case.

위 갑4호증, 진정성립에 다툼이 없는 갑1호증(간이생명표), 원심증인 소외 4의 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 갑6호증(임금계산서)의 각 기재내용과 원심증인 소외 4, 5의 각 증언에 당사자변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 소외 1은 1944.9.13.생으로서 본건 사고발생시인 1970.3.30. 당시 25세 6월 남짓된 건강체를 가진 남자이던 사실, 본건 사고당시 기준의 동인의 여명은 38년 남짓되는 사실, 동인은 본건 사고당시 광성기계공업주식회사의 페인트기술공으로 근무하여 월평균 23,484원의 수입을 얻고 있었으므로 동인은 본건 사고가 없었다면 특단의 사유가 없는 한 동인의 위 여명범위내이고 또 그때까지는 위 페인트기술공으로 근무할 수 있는 연령인 55세까지의 범위내인 원고 2 주장의 354개월(29년 6개월)간은 위 페인트기술공으로 근무하여 최소한도 위와 같은 수입을 얻을 수 있었을 것이라는 사실을 각 인정할 수있고, 반증없으며 동인이 위와 같이 페인트기술공으로 근무하는 경우 생활비로서는 매월 5,000원 정도를 소요하게 될 것이라는 점은 당사자시아에 다툼이 없으니, 동인은 본건 사고로 인하여 위 354개월간 매월 금 17,370원(23,484원-위 소득액에 대한 본건 사고당시 시행중인 소득세법에 의한 갑종근로소득세 1,114원-생활비 5,000원)씩의 얻을 수 있었을 순수입을 상실하여 동액의 재산상 손해를 입은 것이라고 할 것인바, 원고 2는 이를 본건 사고당시 기준의 일시금으로 청구하고 있으므로 위 손해액에서 호프만식 계산법에 따라 민법소정의 월 5/12푼(연 5푼)이 비율에 의한 중간이자를 공제하여 본건 사고당시 기준의 현가를 계산하면, 금 3,772,764원(17,370×217.2)임이 명백한데, 앞에서 본 본건 사고발생에 있어서의 소외 1의 과실을 참작하면 이를 금 3,000,000원으로 감액인정함이 상당하고 앞에서 본 바와 같이 원고 2는 동 손해배상청구권을 단독 상속하였다고 할 것이다.

3. Consolation money.

It is clear in light of the empirical rule that the death of Nonparty 1 and Plaintiff 2, who is the actual wife of the person who died due to the accident in this case, suffered and would receive another severe mental pain. As seen earlier, Plaintiff 2 had the fetus at the time of the accident in this case, but the fetus was deemed to have already been born at the time of the accident, so the Defendant is liable to pay consolation money for each mental pain to each of the above plaintiffs. Accordingly, in full view of the circumstances surrounding the accident in this case, the degree of the negligence of Nonparty 1, who is the victim in the accident in this case, the degree of the damage in this case, and the various circumstances other than the status relationship between the above victims and each of the above plaintiffs, it is reasonable to determine consolation money to each of the plaintiffs as KRW 80,000, respectively.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant has no interest in paying the plaintiff 1 with 80,000 won and 3,080,000 won to the plaintiff 2, and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from March 31, 1970 to each of the plaintiffs' claims after the date of occurrence of this case, and from March 31, 1970 to each of the full payment items. Thus, each of the plaintiffs' claims in the principal lawsuit is legitimate within this limit, and it is unfair to accept and dismiss other claims. Accordingly, the original judgment with this conclusion is just and without merit, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Kim Young-han (Presiding Judge)