The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2 the amount of KRW 1,300,000 and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from May 23, 1973 to the date of full payment.

Plaintiff 2’s remaining claims are dismissed.

2. The defendant's appeal against the remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiff 2 is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, those arising between the defendant and the plaintiff 2 shall be divided into five parts: three parts shall be borne by the plaintiff, the remainder by the defendant, and the costs of appeal between the plaintiffs except the defendant and the plaintiff 2 shall be borne by the defendant.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

Since evidence Nos. 2 and 5 are no dispute between the plaintiff's above-mentioned 1 and the above-mentioned 7 and 8, the plaintiff 2 cannot use the above-mentioned 1 testimony of the witness at the original trial and the whole purport of the parties' arguments so that the above-mentioned 1 and the above 5-mentioned 13-party 5-party 5-party 1 did not use the above 4-party 5-party 5-party 1's work and the above 4-party 5-party 1's work, and the above 5-party 2-party 1's work cannot be found to be carried out on the 5-party 5-party 1's work because it was hard to find that the above 5-party 1's work had been carried on the 5-party 1's work without permission, and the 5-party 2's work should not be carried on on the 5-party 1's work without permission, and the 4-party 1's work can be carried on the 1's.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the above accident.

2. Scope of damages:

(a) Property damage;

Taking into account the plaintiff 2's property damage, Gap evidence No. 1 without dispute about the establishment of the plaintiff 2's testimony and the whole purport of the parties' arguments, the above plaintiff was 14 years old as of April 20, 1959, and the plaintiff was 13,000 won monthly wage as of the time of the accident. Since such income is regarded as a minimum labor wage, it shall not be engaged in the above work for 5 years until the age of 20,000 (13,000 won x 12) annual wage, and it shall be 156,000 won (13,000 won x 13,000 won x 142) annual wage, and it shall be 360,000 won (14,000 won) annual wage x 40% wage x 260,000 won wage x 460,000 won wage x 625,000 won per year.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s attorney asserts that the damages corresponding to the above period are claimed based on a certain amount of income expected at the time of the accident, but the damages claim can not be considered as the basis for calculating the amount of damages, since the Plaintiff’s above Plaintiff’s work as a route engineer at the time of the accident, as a route engineer from the age of 24 to 55 who completed military service, and as a route engineer at the age of 30,000 won per month, he/she may gain profit by 360,000 won per annum. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is groundless.

However, the plaintiff's 14 years old at the time of the accident that he completed military service as 24 years old at the time of the accident, and 52 years old, an average of 24 years old and 55 years old, can be engaged in general rural labor in 300 days annually. The plaintiff's 1, 200 items in Gap evidence No. 9-1, No. 9-2 without dispute over the establishment, and it can be recognized that the daily rural wage of an adult male is 919 years old as of November 1, 1973, and the plaintiff's 1,75,700 won (9 won per day x 300 days x 300 days) or the annual income loss from the time of the plaintiff's 24 years old is 275,700 won (90 won per day 919 x 300 days) or from the above plaintiff's 40% amount per 32 years old based on the calculation method x 1,65, 27084.7.28

Therefore, it is clear that the above Plaintiff’s property loss is calculated based on the total sum of KRW 272,32 and KRW 1,620,255 as above, and KRW 1,892,587.

However, in calculating the above amount of damages, the defendant's attorney argued that it should be calculated on the basis of the balance obtained by deducting public charges from the income at the time of the accident, but the plaintiff's income constitutes a tax-free object under the Income Tax Act, and the

On the other hand, according to the above evidence, the above plaintiff, who was not skilled as a Roman, had been engaged in the dangerous work as above, until the people in the same Article return to them, and had been engaged in the work in compliance with the safety rules, it is recognized that the accident occurred as a result of the occupational negligence, such as the exhibition, which would have been caused without the accident, and therefore, if considering the above negligence of the plaintiff, the damage that the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff should be 1,00,000 won.

(b) consolation money;

According to the above Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the plaintiff 1 and 3 are the parents of the plaintiff 2, and the plaintiff 4, 5, 6, and 7 are the brothers and sisters of the plaintiff 2. It can be easily recognized in light of our rule of experience that the plaintiff 2 suffered a severe mental pain as well as the remaining plaintiffs due to the plaintiff 2's personal injury. Thus, the plaintiff 2 suffered the above mental pain. Thus, the plaintiff 1 and 3 suffered 300,000 won and 10,000 won for each of the plaintiffs 4, 6, and 7 should be considered as 50,000 won in consideration of various circumstances shown in this case.

However, in light of the provisions of Articles 751 and 752 of the Civil Act, the defendant's attorney asserted that the remaining plaintiffs' claims except the plaintiff 2 are unjustifiable, but the above plaintiffs' claims due to mental pain are independent rights of the above plaintiffs suffering from mental pain, and as such, the remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiff 2 were recognized as suffering from mental pain. Thus, the above argument by the defendant's attorney is groundless.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 2 the total amount of KRW 1,300,000 and the consolation money of KRW 300,000,000 and the total amount of KRW 1,30,000, and KRW 100,000, each of the plaintiff 1 and 3 to the plaintiff 4,5,6, and 7, respectively, and the damages for delay at a rate of 50,000 per annum from May 23, 1973 to the full payment date. Thus, the plaintiffs' claims for this case are justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed without merit. Since the original judgment different from this purport is unfair, it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 386, 89, 92, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)