(2) Of the judgment below, the part of consolation money for plaintiffs 1 and the defendant's appeal against the remaining plaintiffs are dismissed.

(3) The costs of appeal against the dismissal of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

(A) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in calculating the lost profit of Plaintiff 1, the court below found that Plaintiff 1, a Korean male who had been working as an electrical engineer of Nonparty 1 at the time of the accident (date of birth omitted) and retired from office October 6, 1978, the average male under the age of the Plaintiff 1, 49, and ordinary electricity and daily work are 55 years, and the fact that the ordinary electricity and daily work can be operated by the age of 55, and the fact that the monthly loss amount of the Plaintiff was 80,982 won and 50 days, respectively, was confirmed, and then the Plaintiff was able to work for 5402 months from October 6, 1978 to the age of 55, the maximum working age of 195, and the Plaintiff was able to calculate the amount of damages of the Plaintiff’s passively calculated the amount of profits earned during the above period after deducting the intermediate interest of 5/12% per month from the profits earned during the above period.

However, according to Article 2 of the Military Service Act, a male who is a citizen of the Republic of Korea bears the duty of military service, barring special circumstances, and even if a male transferred to supplemental service under Article 59 of the same Act is transferred to supplemental service, he shall serve as a defense soldier for a certain period of time. According to the records, Plaintiff 1 was not able to complete the duty of military service until this accident occurred (Article 2 of the Civil Service Act) and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff was exempted from the duty of military service (Article 2 (4) of the preparatory document of June 26, 1979) and there was no other evidence to prove that the plaintiff was exempted from the duty of military service. Thus, in calculating the future lost income of the plaintiff, the period of military service should have been excluded from the future maximum working age. However, the court below did not exclude the plaintiff's retirement from the court below, and calculated his lost amount by setting the whole period from the date of retirement to the age of 55 to the maximum working age,

Therefore, the appeal on this point is reasonable, and therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below on the passive assessment of damages by Plaintiff 1 is not exempt from the reversal of the remaining grounds of appeal.

(B) The Plaintiffs’ consolation money portion cited by the lower judgment is not indicated in the grounds of appeal, and this part of the appeal is without merit.

(2) Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the part against the defendant against the plaintiff 1 and the defendant, excluding the consolation money, shall be reversed and remanded to the court below for a retrial, and all appeals against the plaintiff 1's consolation money and the remaining plaintiffs shall be dismissed. The costs of the appeal against the dismissed appeal shall be borne by the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Hong-chul (Presiding Justice)