The defendant's appeal against the plaintiff 1 against the plaintiff 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 is dismissed, and the costs of appeal against the plaintiff 1 are assessed against the defendant.

1. First of all, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the calculation of the lost profit of Plaintiff 1 in the health unit, and the court below acknowledged that a physically healthy male can normally be engaged in passenger drivers until the age of 60, and based on this, calculated the lost profit of Plaintiff 1 as a driver until the end of the age of 60.

As above, it is clear in the record that the court below recognized that a physically healthy male can work as a driver until the age of 60 in the case of ordinary male is due to the testimony of the non-party to the witness of the first instance trial among the evidence in its holding.

However, according to his testimony, a driver can work until the age of 60 if he has good health such as vision. In particular, in light of the fact that he is under health conditions such as vision, this testimony seems not to speak the maximum working age of a general driver, but to speak the maximum working age in special cases.

Therefore, the court below acknowledged the maximum working age of general driving engineer as only the above testimony as up to 60 years, and without examining whether Plaintiff 1 falls under the above special health conditions, such as the vision, etc., and calculated the lost profit of Plaintiff 1 as a driving engineer until the end of 60 years of age, it should be deemed that Plaintiff 1 left the ground for illegality recognizing facts without any evidence or not. Since Plaintiff 1 was working in the former passenger company, the above Plaintiff 1 was in the former passenger company. Thus, it was found that it was necessary to have judged the instant case by examining whether or not the system on retirement age, etc. as a driving engineer in the company or similar company was established or not.

2. Next, we examine the consolation money part of the Defendant’s appeal against Plaintiffs 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Considering the various circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court recognized that it is reasonable for the Defendant to pay 1,00,000 won to the Plaintiff 1, and 500,000 won to the Plaintiff 2, and 3, 4, 5, and 6 respectively, as consolation money for the Plaintiffs’ emotional distress. The lower court’s aforementioned determination appears to be justifiable in the records and cannot be said to have been erroneous.

3. Therefore, the part of the defendant's appeal against the defendant against the plaintiff 1 in the judgment of the court below, excluding the consolation money of 12,000,000 won, shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below. The consolation money part against the plaintiff 1 and the defendant's appeal against the other plaintiffs shall be dismissed, and this part of the appeal shall be decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Dra-ro (Presiding Justice)