The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount equivalent to 2,978,619 won, 1,041,970 won, and 5% per annum from November 12, 1978 to the date of full payment.

Judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second instances;

However, according to Gap evidence Nos. 13-2, 2 (actual investigation report, statement of statement, non-party 3), and Eul evidence Nos. 9 (Medical Examination Book), which are acknowledged to be established by the testimony of non-party 4, and if the testimony of non-party 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the court below is gathered the whole purport of the pleadings, the above high voltage cable passes through a special high voltage wire of the voltage 22,900 V (V) installed and managed by the defendant company, with the height of non-party 1's house 732 cm (cm) above the north 1's house, and the above high voltage line of the plaintiff 2 and the deceased non-party 2 were connected to the above part of the plaintiff 2's second antenna line, and the above part of the plaintiff 2 and the deceased non-party 2 were found to have no high voltage line of the plaintiff 2's front antenna, and the above part of the plaintiff 2's front antenna was established.

Therefore, in light of the above facts, the above accident is expected to occur because the residents of the village through which the above high voltage processing cable passed by the defendant company as the manager of the above high voltage processing cable installed a antenna higher than the above high voltage cable in order to solve the terasium, and it is anticipated that there is a risk of a sudden accident, not only securing the ground separation distance under the Technical Standards Decree for Electric Equipment Facilities, but also installing a dangerous sign to the extent that anyone can find it possible to find it possible to install a safety net under the supervision of the defendant company or to take necessary measures for the prevention of accidents, and therefore, the accident occurred due to the defect in the installation of the facilities necessary for the prevention of accidents, which is caused by the failure to install the facilities necessary for the prevention of accidents, so the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the above accident.

However, in full view of all the evidence and arguments as seen above, Plaintiff 1, who requested Plaintiff 2, etc. to install the antenna at the same time, should have requested work to experts such as radio wave workers, etc. in preparation for an accident that happens during the work of installing the antenna. However, even in the case of direct antenna installation work without doing so, the Plaintiffs should avoid passing through the above high voltage cable and put up the above antenna by avoiding the point where the accident occurred. In addition, even though it was predicted that the antenna might be in contact with the above high voltage cable due to erroneous antennas during the work, it can be seen that the above negligence was caused by this accident and it also should be considered in calculating the damages amount of this case by the Plaintiffs.

Therefore, the court below's witness's testimony that the plaintiffs suffered property damages due to the accident, first, if the witness's testimony, such as Gap evidence No. 7 (Receipt), the authenticity of which is recognized, is collected, and the plaintiff 1 can recognize that the plaintiff 1 paid 30,000 won from the date of the accident to the 24th of the same month from the date of the accident, due to the medical expenses of his own injury suffered by the above accident. Thus, the plaintiff 1 suffered property damages equivalent to the above amount.

Next, according to Non-Party 7's testimony, Gap evidence 8 (Receipt) and non-party 3's testimony, which is recognized as constituting Gap's 10, 11, 12 (each receipt, future presumption of medical treatment) which are acknowledged as constituting Gap's 10, 100 won + 17,000 won per accident, and 30,000 won per day until July 14 of the same year, and 17,000 won per accident, and 324,000 won per annum, and 10,000 won for each of the above statements of 10,00 won x 10,00 won x 20,00 won for each of the above statements of 10,00 won x 371,00 won for each of the above statements of evidence No. 10,12, and 14,000 won for each of the above statements of evidence No. 2, the plaintiff's average remaining evidence No. 14, respectively,

However, considering each negligence of the plaintiffs' own above, the defendant should pay 15,000 won to the plaintiff 1, and 500,000 won to the plaintiff 2, respectively, among the above damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case.

Next, we can find that the plaintiffs suffered a lot of mental pain due to the accident of this case according to our rule of experience that the plaintiffs suffered a lot of mental pain. Therefore, considering various circumstances shown in the pleadings such as the plaintiffs' property level, the defendant should pay 10 million won to the plaintiff 1 and 200,000 won to the plaintiff 2, respectively.

The plaintiff 1's attorney paid KRW 2,50,00 to his heir of the above non-party deceased, and KRW 63,619 to the non-party deceased's heir, funeral expenses, and consolation money for his family members, respectively, due to the management of affairs for the defendant company responsible for compensating for the damages suffered by the non-party 2 caused by the above accident. The defendant asserts that all of the above money is liable for reimbursement of KRW 2,563,619. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the defendant is not liable for damages due to the non-party 6's testimony, which is acknowledged to be established by the non-party 6's witness's testimony, the plaintiff 1 cannot be viewed as being liable for damages due to the above non-party 2's act of giving testimony to the witness's witness's above stated in Gap evidence No. 6 (Agreement) and thus, it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's defendant 2 was not liable for damages due to the above non-party 2's work and consolation money.

According to the plaintiff 1's legal representative's non-party 2's agreement that the plaintiff's non-party 2 should have been paid the above amount of damages to 0 non-party 2's non-party 5's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 5's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's damages.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 1 15,00 won, 70,000 won to the plaintiff 2, and 700,000 won and each of the above amounts to the plaintiff 1 as property damages and consolation money, with the rate of 5% per annum from November 12, 1978 to the full payment date of this case which the plaintiffs sought after the date of the above illegal act. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified within the above recognized scope, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just and without merit, and the appeal of the plaintiffs is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are so decided as per Disposition with the plaintiffs' burden which is the losing party.

Judge Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Judge)