The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 57,856,936 won and the amount of 5% per annum from November 26, 1985 to June 7, 1987, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. The remaining plaintiffs' appeals are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the portion arising between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant is five minutes for both the plaintiff 1 and the defendant, and the remainder is borne by the above plaintiff 1 and the defendant, respectively, and the remaining portion arising from the appeal by the other plaintiffs is borne by the same plaintiff.

4. A provisional execution may be effected on the part, except for the portion declared provisional execution by the first instance among the money referred to in paragraph (1).

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 75,510,420 won, the amount of 50,000 won per annum from November 26, 1985 to the date when the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered, and the amount of 25,000 won per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second instances, and provisional execution shall be declared.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the above plaintiff in the first and second instances.

As evidence No. 1-2, 3 (each certified copy of family register), evidence No. 2-1, 4 (each certified copy of the deceased’s report), evidence No. 5 (the same as evidence No. 1-4), evidence No. 10-2, 4 (Judgment), 8, 10 (each protocol of Examination of Evidence), and evidence No. 1-2, 3, 5 (each protocol of Statement) are no dispute over the establishment of evidence No. 1-2, 1-2, 6-1, and 1-2, 6-10 (each protocol of Statement), and the defendant continued to be in progress at a speed of approximately 60 kilometers in the front and rear of the 6-1, 1985, while driving the above 7-106:45 on Nov. 25, 1985, the plaintiffs were no longer liable for damages to the above 1-2, 2000 mar-2, which had been operating at the speed of 60 kilometers in front of the m.

On the other hand, there is no dispute between the parties that the above deceased did not fasten the safety level set up in the seat of the above taxi at the time of the instant accident, and thus, the above deceased was caused by the accident of this case and the expansion of damages. However, even if the defendant did not reach the extent of exemption from the liability for damages of this case, it should be considered in determining the scope of liability.

2. Scope of liability for damages

(a) passive damage;

The above facts of Gap evidence 1-3 (No. 3) 3 (No. 3) , Gap evidence 6-1, 23 (No. 9-2, 4) , Gap evidence 7-1 through 4, Gap evidence 8-2 , Eul evidence 11-2, Eul evidence 2 (including records of special bonus), Eul evidence 3-2 (No. 12), Eul evidence 7-14 , Eul evidence 7-1, 7-1, 7-2, 9-2, 7-1, 48-1, 7-2, 9-1, 7-2, 30-1, 7-4, 7-1, 7-2, 9-1, 7-4, 7-2, 9-1, 7-4, 7-2, and 48-1, 7-2, and 9-1, 7-2, and 3-4, respectively, for non-party 3

According to the above facts, between 272 months from the date of this accident until the end of the age of 48 (less than 426,027 x 2/3) from the date of the above accident if the deceased did not have this accident, the income of KRW 284,018 (426,027 x 2/3) which remains after deducting the monthly living expenses from the general affairs of the above company. At least 84 months from the following day until the end of the age of 55, the remaining income of at least 125,00 (7,50 x 25 x 2/3) which remains after deducting the monthly living expenses can be raised from the total amount of damages x 15,00,00 (7,50 x 25 x 3). Thus, it is clear that the plaintiff 1 paid the above amount of damages x 105,000 won to the above company x 15,015,000 won x 2515,0815,00

(b) Funeral expenses damage;

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 9-1 through 7 and the purport of oral argument in the testimony of the above witness, the mother of the above witness No. 1, who is the mother of the above deceased, can be acknowledged to have spent KRW 522,00,00 for the funeral of the above deceased, who is his own child and at his own expense KRW 493,30,00 for food, such as body treatment expenses, drinking water and day, KRW 493,30,000 for the long time, KRW 435,00 for the long time, KRW 627,50, and KRW 500 for the long time, KRW 52,00 for the long time, KRW 2,312,80 for the above witness’s testimony, and the fact that the above witness’s mother, who is the mother of the above deceased, took care of the deceased’s body’s funeral at his own expense, and at his own expense, he cannot be seen to have given the general purpose and custom of the deceased’s funeral expenses.

(c) Daily retirement allowance;

Comprehensively taking into account the purport of the arguments in the statements in the above statement No. 6 (Retirement Allowance Payment Record), No. 9-1 (average Wage Account Statement), and No. 5 (Certified Copies) of the above deceased on March 15, 1982, the deceased retired on November 25, 1985, and the non-party company has paid the average wage of 30 days for each year of continuous service as retirement allowance (the total payment shall be calculated for less than one year), and there is no counter-proof. The deceased non-party 2's retirement age at the above non-party company is 48 years of age, and the average wage at the time of the accident is 12,159 won per day, and 148 years of age x 146 years of age x 146 years of age x 146 years of age x 146 years of age x 156 years of age x 14 years of age x 164 years of age 5 years of age of age x 14.4 years of age 26

(d) Set-off of negligence;

Therefore, property damage caused by the above accident is a total of KRW 59,452,152 (56,125,11+3,327,041) and KRW 1,50,000 for the damage caused by the plaintiff 1. However, considering the above negligence on the part of the above deceased, the amount that the defendant would compensate for the above deceased shall be KRW 53,506,936 (59,452,152 x90) and KRW 1,350,00 for the amount that the defendant would compensate for to the plaintiff 1 (1,50,000,000 x 90/100).

(e) consolation money;

Since the above deceased's death due to the accident of this case, it is obvious that the plaintiffs, as well as his family members, suffered considerable mental pain, the defendant has a duty to prosecute it in money. Considering various circumstances such as the deceased and the plaintiffs' age, family relation, property and educational degree, accident circumstance, and result, it is reasonable to pay 2,00,000 won to the above deceased, 1,00,000 won to the above deceased, and 3,00,000,000 won to the rest of the plaintiffs.

(f) Inheritance relationship;

According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as above, the above-mentioned damages of KRW 53,506,936, and solatium 2,000,000, and KRW 55,506,936, and the above-mentioned damages claim for damages of KRW 55,506,936, shall be deemed to have been succeeded and acquired by the plaintiff 1, who is the property inheritor.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 57,856,936 won (55,506,936 +1,350,000 +1,000 + 300,000 won each of the remaining plaintiffs and each of them shall be 300,000 won and 300,000 won each of them, after the date of this accident and the seal of this case from November 26, 1985 to June 9, 1987, the amount of 5% per annum of the Civil Litigation Act and 25% per annum per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, etc. (the plaintiff is entitled to pay damages for delay at the statutory interest rate of the above special law, but the defendant does not claim for damages for delay from the plaintiff 9 to the above 90,000 won, and the remaining part of the plaintiff's appeal shall not be subject to the judgment of the court below as to this case's damages for delay.

Judge Ansan-tae (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)