(2) The Defendants jointly and severally pay to Plaintiff 1 money at the rate of five percent per annum from February 17, 1979 to the date of full payment.

(3) Plaintiff 1’s remaining claims are dismissed.

(4) All appeals filed by the Defendants against the Plaintiffs, such as Plaintiffs 2, 3, 4, and 5, are dismissed.

(5) The costs of appeal between the Plaintiff 1 and the Defendants are divided into nine parts through the first and second instances, and that eight parts are assessed against the Defendants, and the remainder one is assessed against the same Plaintiff. The costs of appeal by the Defendants against the Plaintiffs, such as the costs of appeal by the Plaintiff 2, 3, 4, and 5, are assessed against the Defendants respectively.

(6) A provisional execution may be effected for the portion exceeding 250,000 won in paragraph (2).

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to Plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 479,339,65, and KRW 15,012,220, and KRW 10,28,000, and KRW 10,288,00, and KRW 4,860, and KRW 50,00 for each of the above amounts, and the amount at the rate of KRW 1,960,860 from February 17, 1979 to the date of full payment.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants in both the first and second instances, and a declaration of provisional execution.

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

The grounds for the judgment of the party members concerning the main defense of the defendants' attorney and the occurrence of liability for damages in the instant case (including the rejection of the defendant's legal representative's grounds for offsetting negligence) are the same as the reasoning of the original judgment, and therefore, it shall be accepted in accordance with Article 390 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Scope of damages.

(a) Property damage;

(1) The deceased non-party 1's property damage

(A) A passive loss (the lost profit)

In light of Gap evidence Nos. 1 (No. 1), Gap evidence No. 19, 20 (the average number of the deceased) and Gap evidence No. 2 (the records of the court below's testimony) which may be established by the non-party No. 1, Eul evidence No. 20, Eul evidence No. 20, Eul evidence No. 1, the total amount of the deceased's 0, 000 won for 7 months after the death of 0, 000 won for 0, 00 won for 30,000 won for 10,000 won for 30,000 won for 0,000 won for 0,000 won for 40,000 won for 70,000 won for 0,000 won for 1,60,000 won for 30,000 won for 1,000 won for 30,000 won for 7,000 won for 1,7.

(B) Positive damages

In full view of the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 7 (sales Contract), Gap evidence Nos. 11 and 12 and part of the testimony of non-party 8 witness of the court below and the result of the examination of criminal records by the court below, which do not conflict with the establishment, the fact that the market price at the time of the transfer of the above deceased's (vehicle No. 1) No. 7 No. 11 and 12 was equivalent to 2,500,000 won, but it was impossible to repair due to the complete destruction of the accident, and that there was no dissenting evidence, and thus, the active property damage suffered by the above deceased's accident shall be 2,40,000 won (2,50,000,000 won).

(2) The deceased non-party 9's property damage

Comprehensively considering the above evidence Nos. 20, Gap evidence Nos. 4-2 (Postmortem Examination Report) and Eul evidence Nos. 3 (Agricultural Cooperative Investigation Monthly Report), the deceased non-party 9, as a healthy woman of September 24, 1956, average remaining 52 years old at the time of the accident, was 22 years old, and the labor wages of the adult female as of October 1978 were 2,98,000 2,99,000 won per day, and there is no dissenting evidence, 25 days per month until the age of 55 is completed, and 30,000 won per month after the death of the deceased 20,000 won x 30,000 won per month, 30,000 won per month until the death of the above deceased 55 years x 40,000 won per month, 40,000 won per month until the death of the deceased 50,000 won per month.

(3) The deceased non-party 10's property damage

Considering the above Gap evidence Nos. 3, 20, and 1-2 (No dispute over the establishment of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 10 and the whole purport of oral arguments, the deceased non-party 10, as healthy female workers remaining 25 years and 47 years old at the time of this accident, can be acknowledged facts that the average female workers' daily wages for rural communities as of October 1978 are 2,98, there is no opposing evidence, and the rural daily wages can be worked every 25 days until they complete 55 years of age, and there is no dispute between the parties that 30,000 won per month for the living expenses of the above deceased and 30,000 won per month, and it is evident that the above deceased is 20,000 won per month for 370 months from the time of this accident to the end of 550 years of age 】 370,000 won per month for 40,000 won per month, 294,5008 won per month for the death.

(4) The deceased non-party 11's property damage

Comprehensively considering the above Gap evidence Nos. 20, Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 and 6 (Grain Sales Permit), and the whole purport of the arguments by the non-party 12, the deceased non-party 11, as a woman remaining 62 years old at the time of the accident, is about 17 years old, as the average remaining life is about 62 years old, with the permission of the authorities from Masan-si (Land Number omitted) from April 25, 197, operated the grain sales business under the mutual name "(trade name omitted)", with the permission of authorities, at least 30,00 won per month. No counter evidence exists that 30,000 won per 4,00 won per 70 won per month, and there was no conflict between the above parties as living expenses of the deceased 】 The above difficulty was about 30,000 won per month and 400,000 won per month, and it was about 30,000 won per month from the above accident.

(5) Plaintiff 2’s property damage

In full view of the contents of evidence Nos. 13-1(the presumption of medical expenses aftermathy), evidence Nos. 14-1 to 11(the receipt, simplified tax invoice) which can be recognized as the authenticity by the testimony of Nonparty 12 of the witness of the court below, and the whole purport of the arguments by the witness of the court below, the witness of the court below revealed that, in order to remove the remaining plehy from the face, etc. caused by this accident, the plaintiff 2 was hospitalized in the hospital to undergo an operation and undergo an operation. 621,00 won is required for the hospitalized treatment expenses. Funeral expenses for four persons killed in the accident of this case, including funeral expenses 2,623,360 won, were hospitalized at the hospital, and the body of the deceased of the court below 14-1 to 14(the receipt, simplified tax invoice) and each part of the testimony by the witness of the above court 13, the plaintiff 2 did not have any considerable objection to the above 360-6360 billion won total amount of funeral expenses.

(6) Plaintiff 3’s property damage

In full view of the contents stated in Gap evidence No. 13-2 (Presumption of Medical Treatment Costs after flavoring) that can be recognized as the authenticity by the testimony of the above witness 13 and the purport of the whole purport of the argument of the witness in part of the testimony of the above witness, plaintiff 3 can be admitted to the hospital and undergo an operation in order to remove the remaining chests of face due to this injury, and there is no counter evidence that the plaintiff 3 takes 321,000 won as the expenses for the hospitalization.

(7) Determination on Plaintiff 1’s claim for property damage

The plaintiffs' attorney argued that the plaintiff 1 lost the labor force of 40% due to the injuries, and that the plaintiff 1 suffered property damage equivalent to the amount of 4,840,490 won according to the above ratio of loss of labor ability among the profits that the plaintiff 1 was able to obtain from the time when 20 years of age reaches the age of 55 until the completion of 55 years of age. However, according to the results of physical appraisal of the non-party 14 of the above plaintiff 14 of the court below, the above plaintiff 1 could be recognized as having been able to recover the above plaintiff's work time and time after the accident, but it is obvious that about 1 year and 6 months have passed since the accident occurred from the time of the accident to the time of the closing of argument in the court of first instance, and in this case, the above assertion by the plaintiff 1 was no longer reasonable.

(b) Mental damage;

With respect to the relationship with the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1's wife, the deceased non-party 9's wife, the deceased non-party 11's mother, the plaintiff 2, 4, and 5's mother, and the deceased non-party 10's mother at the same time as the plaintiff 2's wife, and there is no dispute between the parties. Thus, the above non-party 3's mother was suffering from severe mental distress up to the death of the above non-party 1's wife. In addition, according to our rule of experience, the plaintiffs who died of the above non-party 1 and their children (excluding the plaintiff 4 and 5) and suffered a lot of mental pains about their lives and their lives (excluding the plaintiff 4 and 5), or it can be confirmed in a way of our rule of experience that they will receive or take them into account. The amount is reasonable for the plaintiff 1 to receive 2,00,000 won, 100 won, 300 won, 1000 won, 1000 won and 10.

(c) Inheritance relationship;

The above right to claim damages of the deceased was inherited to each inheritor. The sum of the deceased non-party 1's 41,245,702 won (the lost profit + KRW 407,845,702 + the 2,400,000 + the 1,00,000 + the 11,617,563 Won (the 10,617,563 + the 1,000 won + the 1,000 won + the 10,617,563 won + the 1,00,000 won) total of the deceased non-party 10, the 11,049,643 won (the 10,049,643 + the 1,000 won per day profit + the 1,40,301,341,25,41,25,241 and the 304,500 won, respectively.

D. Accordingly, the Defendants jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff 1 for 425,69,125 won [423,69,125 won (41,245,702 won +11,617,563 won +835,860 won + 2,000,000 won (the 6,360,681 won (the 5,524,821 won +835,860 won) + the 10,745,041 won (the 3,684,360 won + the 70,000 won per annum) + the 3,545,821 won per annum (the 70,000 won per annum) + the 10,545,821 (the 5,200,545,200 won per annum of inheritance + the 360,501,531,205,000 won per annum of proprietary damages).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are justified within the scope mentioned above, and the remaining claims are dismissed because they are unfair. Since the judgment of the court below is recognized as being unfair with the conclusion of the plaintiff 1, it is modified, and the remaining plaintiffs are justified with the conclusion, it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 95, Article 96, Article 89, Article 92, Article 93 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the burden of litigation costs, Article 19 of the provisional execution order.

Judges fixed ticket (Presiding Judge) Mobile Engines