손해배상(자)
1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.
2. In accordance with the expansion of the purport of the claim in the trial, the defendant shall each be against the plaintiff B, C, and D.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. A portion used for adding or cutting;
A. The following facts are added to four (4) of the first instance judgment.
The plaintiff asserts that "(the plaintiff, while the deceased started to stand the crosswalk in a green state, the pedestrian signal, etc. was changed to red, so the pedestrian signal, etc. was involved in the accident of this case, so the rate of the deceased's negligence shall be 10%, and the defendant's responsibility shall be 90%.
However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the deceased started to cut the crosswalk in a green condition by only the descriptions and images of Gap evidence Nos. 11 through 14 (including paper numbers), and there is no other evidence to recognize otherwise.
Rather, according to the evidence No. 4’s image, it appears that the green signal was maintained as it was because the location of the signal, etc. was not changed from the Defendant’s direction signal, etc. from about seven seconds before the instant accident occurred. Considering the eromatic speed of the Deceased, the location of the instant accident occurred, etc., it appears that the pedestrian signal, etc. was red at the time when the Deceased begins to collapse the crosswalk.
Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.
[Attachment]
B. In the fourth 7th 7th 7th 8th of the judgment of the first instance, “other than the following separate statements, it is the same as each corresponding item of the attached damages calculation table.”
C. The 6th half to 19th half of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be followed as follows.
G. According to the above facts, among the deceased’s actual old age pension income, the Plaintiff A’s 6,885,812 won (i.e., the deceased’s actual old age pension 41,314,873 x the scope of Defendant’s responsibility x 50% x Plaintiff’s inherited shares 3/9). The rest of the Plaintiffs 4,590,541 won = the deceased’s actual old age pension 41,314,873.