2. The original judgment shall be modified as follows:

(1) The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 16,136,054 won, 14,828,054 won, 10,052,036 won to the plaintiff 3, and 4 respectively, and the amount of 50,000 won per annum from August 14, 1983 to April 26, 1984, and the amount of 25 percent per annum from April 27, 1984 to the date of full payment.

(2) Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

(3) The above (1) can be provisionally executed.

3. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 14,828,054 won, 10,052,036 won, 50,000 won per annum from August 14, 1983 to the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, 50,000 won per annum from August 14, 1983 to the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, and 25,000 won per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

In light of Gap evidence Nos. 2 (Traffic Accident Confirmation Board), Gap evidence Nos. 3 (O. 6-8, the same evidence No. 6-2), Eul evidence Nos. 6-3 (traffic Accident Report), the same evidence Nos. 4, 5 (Written Statement), and 10 (Interrogation of Suspect) without dispute over the establishment of the defendant, non-party 1, a driver belonging to the defendant, driving a high speed bus No. 20 on August 13, 1983 belonging to the defendant (vehicle number omitted), driving the bus No. 3 at about 80 km in Seoul, and driving the bus No. 6 at the speed of about 80 km in order to cause damages to the plaintiff's parents, and the defendant is not liable for damages to the non-party 2, who operated the above bus No. 3 with the above passenger No. 1, the plaintiff's heir No. 2 and the plaintiff's heir No. 2.

The defendant asserts that the above express bus should be taken into account in determining the amount of the defendant's liability for damages because the negligence of driving the central line without taking any measures to avoid collision, even at the remote distance where the above express bus going beyond the central line in order to overtake the vehicle, and the accident occurred. However, according to each of the above statements in Gap evidence Nos. 6-3 and 10-10, the accident point is a one-way expressway, where overtaking is allowed, but the opposite bus cannot be satisfed for this purpose. Thus, the above non-party Nos. 1 did not go ahead without fail to take any measures to avoid collision, and even if it is necessary to pass ahead, it should be checked the existence of the vehicle coming from the opposite line and the distance, etc., and even if it is necessary to do so, it should not be accepted as the above fault of the above non-party Nos. 6-1, which had been done at the speed of 70 kilometers per hour, which is within the speed of restriction.

2. Scope of damages.

(a) The deceased’s lost profits;

If the testimony of the above witness 1-1 (No. 5), Gap evidence 5 (Business Registration Certificate), 2 (Business Registration Certificate), 5-2 (Business Registration Certificate), 6-6 (Statement Statement), 7-7 (Monthly-1) of the same evidence, and 4 of the above witness Gap evidence which are acknowledged to have been authenticity by the testimony of the non-party 3, and the purport of the whole oral argument is collected, the above deceased's physical health male who was born on January 12, 1953 who was living before the above 30 years old and 7 months old at the time of the above accident, and whose business registration was carried on by the non-party 5-2 (Name), 350,00 won for the manufacturing industry (name of the automobile omitted) and the above 5-20,000 won for the above 5-year 5-year 5-year 5-year 5-year 5-year 5-year 5-year 5-year 5-year 5-year 7, respectively.

Therefore, by January 11, 2009, the deceased could obtain the net income of 233,33 won (350,000 x 2/3 x less than won; hereinafter the same shall apply) monthly income from which he/she may engage in the same business as above and be punished for a period of 304 months from the end of 55 years of age if he/she had not been involved in the above accident (if he/she is less than a month, he/she is less than a month), which would have incurred losses that would be lost monthly due to the above accident, and as the plaintiffs' legal representatives seek, they would be paid monthly interest at the rate of 12 45,760,181 won (23,333 x 2/33 x 534545).

(b) Funeral expenses, etc.

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 7-1, 2 (each receipt), 8-1, 2 (each simplified tax invoice), each of the above witnesses’ evidence Nos. 7-1, and Gap evidence Nos. 8-2 (each simplified tax invoice), and the whole purport of the arguments in the testimony of the above witness, the court below’s witness’s testimony can be acknowledged that the plaintiff 1 paid KRW 30,000 at the hospital admission cost up to the time of the death of the above deceased, KRW 760,00 for funeral expenses ( KRW 10,000 for permanent expenses, KRW 250,000 for permanent expenses, KRW 50,00 for funeral expenses), and KRW 18,000 for the preparation of the body examination report of the above deceased’s deceased’s body, and KRW 808,000 for funeral expenses, and there is no counter evidence otherwise.

The defendant asserts that the portion out of the funeral expenses that deviates from the Family Rite Rules and the expenses for the preparation of a written autopsy does not constitute proximate causal relation with the above accident, but there is no evidence to deem that there was any part exceeding the Family Rite Rules among the expenses paid as funeral expenses, and that there is no other person's death due to a tort, the submission of a death certificate or a written autopsy report in order to file a claim for damages, and thus, the expenses incurred in the preparation of the above documents shall be included in ordinary damages caused by the tort. Thus

(c) Compensation money;

Since it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the death of the deceased was caused by the deceased himself, his wife, and the plaintiffs who are his own and their parents respectively due to the death of the deceased, the defendant has a duty to patriarche this through monetary payment. In light of the circumstances and result of the above accident, the amount of consolation money shall be determined as KRW 2,00,000,000 for the deceased, and KRW 1,00,000 for the remaining plaintiffs and KRW 500,000 for each of the plaintiffs.

(d) Inheritance relations; and

In accordance with the above deceased's death, the deceased's right to claim compensation for the total amount of 47,760,181 won (45,760,181 +2,000,000) shall be inherited to the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 2 in 14,328,054 won (47,760,181 x 3/100) in accordance with the statutory share of inheritance, and 9,52,536 won (47,760,181 x 2/100) in 3 and the plaintiff 4 respectively.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is dismissed as follows: 16,136,054 won (14,328,054 + 808,000 + 1,000 + 1,000 + 14,828,054 won (14,328,500 + 500,000) for the plaintiff 2, 10,052,036 won (9,52,036 + 0000) for each of the plaintiff 3 and 4 respectively; 5,00,000 won for each of the above claims against the plaintiff 1; 9,00,000 won for damages for delay from the day following the accident to August 14, 1983; 5,000 won for damages for delay from the original judgment to the date of the above decision; 9,0000 won for each of the above claims for damages for delay from the original judgment to the court below's 9,000 per annum.

Judges Lee Jae-hwan (Presiding Judge)