2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this part of the claim for damages is as follows: “The plaintiff requested a retrial to the Army General Law Meeting around October 22, 1974, and the Army General Law Meeting around August 24, 2010, and each request for a retrial was all dismissed,” except for an addition of “the plaintiff filed a request for a retrial to the Army General Law Meeting around October 22, 1974, and each request for a retrial to the Army General Law Office around August 24, 2010,” and this part is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance. Accordingly, it is cited in accordance

3. Scope of damages.

A. As to the amount of consolation money for non-property damage suffered by the deceased's own tort of consolation money and bereaved family members, the fact-finding court can determine it at its own discretion, taking into account various circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da43165, Nov. 26, 2002). However, this does not mean that a judge's arbitrary discretion is allowed to calculate consolation money.

As a matter of course, the amount of consolation money must be calculated in accordance with the relevant age and general legal sentiment. Therefore, the calculation of consolation money significantly contrary to the ideology of fair sharing of damages and the principle of equity would deviate from the bounds of the discretion of the fact-finding court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Da3527, Dec. 24, 2009; 2012Da202819, May 16, 2013). Furthermore, the Korean War and the Korean War that followed the truth-finding decision under the Framework Act on the Settlement of Historys before and after War for Reconciliation was 60 years or more from the time of the occurrence of the damage, and the said Act also leads to the uniform recovery of the damage, and the victim’s number is very large, and the victims’ amount of consolation money is distributed across the nation.