The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 350,00, KRW 100,00 per annum from January 22, 1975 to the full payment system. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 100,000 per annum.

The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit shall be five-minutes through the first and second trials, and 4 shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder 1 shall be borne by the defendants.

A provisional execution may be carried out for paragraph (1).

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 3,50,000, KRW 150,000 per annum from January 22, 1975 to the full payment system.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution, which shall be assessed against all of the first and second trials.

Thus, the defendant company is a person who operates an automobile for himself under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and since the accident occurred due to its operation, the defendant company is responsible for compensating the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident.

However, the defendant's attorney argues that the accident occurred when the non-party, who is the driver of the Dong-si, on board the plaintiff 1, who is in a close-friendly relationship with the plaintiff 1, while enjoying the dramab. Thus, the defendant company is not liable for this accident, and even if it is not so, the defendant's liability for damages should be exempted since the accident occurred at all due to the plaintiff's negligence. Thus, according to the statement of the No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3 of the No. 1, No. 3 of the No. 1, the non-party's argument that the accident occurred with the non-party 1, who moved in the Dong-si at his own discretion, and the plaintiff who moved in the Dong-si constitutes "other party" as referred to in Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and in such a case, the defendant cannot be held liable for damages to the plaintiff unless the defendant was exempted from liability, but it cannot be said that the defendant's liability for damages should not be denied.

In other words, after the occurrence of this case, the defendant company did not claim damages from the defendant company after treating only the plaintiff's wife after the occurrence of this case, since the defendant company completely cured the plaintiff's wife, the defendant company's claim for damages from this case's damages is justified, and there is no evidence to accept this claim.

Furthermore, in full view of the whole purport of the parties' arguments as to the amount of damages, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 4-1, Eul evidence 4-1, 8-2, and non-party 3's appraisal result, the plaintiff 1 is a woman of 17.11 years old at the time of the accident and 17 years old, 56.4 years old, the average female of 17.4 years old at the time of the accident. The plaintiff 1 is a woman of 17.17 years old and 17 years old, the daily wages of 977 years old at the time of the accident at the time of the accident sought by the plaintiff, and the fact that the plaintiff lost 5% of the general labor ability at least due to the ground of dulververization of the accident 】 10 days old and 50 days old due to the above accident 】 20 days old and 50 days old and 50 days old and 50 days old and lost 50 days old and 50 days old and 56 days old and 50.7 days old.5 days old and 36 days old.5 days old.4

Then, it can be seen that the plaintiffs suffered severe mental suffering as well as the plaintiff 2 and 3, who are their parents, due to the health team and the accident that is not that of the plaintiff 1, and that the plaintiff 2 and 3, who are their parents, suffered significant mental suffering. Thus, considering all circumstances revealed in the arguments, such as the background of the accident, the degree of the situation of the plaintiff 1, and the negligence of the plaintiff 1, it is reasonable to determine the plaintiffs 1 as 200,000 won for the plaintiffs 1, and 100,000 won for each of the plaintiffs 2 and 3.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 350,00 and KRW 100,00 per annum from January 22, 1975 to the full payment system. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition and cites it within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are without merit. Thus, the judgment below is erroneous in its conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 95, 89, 92, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of costs of lawsuit, and Article 199 of the provisional execution.

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)