The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of 1,200,000 won with the rate of 5 percent per annum from July 11, 1973 to the full payment.

The remaining claims of plaintiffs 1 and appeals by plaintiffs 2 and 3 and appeals by the defendant against the above plaintiffs are dismissed in entirety.

All the costs of appeal arising between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant shall be divided into two parts through the first and second trials, and the remainder shall be borne by the above plaintiff and the defendant respectively, and the costs of appeal between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant shall be borne by the same plaintiffs, the defendant 3, and the costs of appeal against the plaintiff 2 shall be borne by the same defendant respectively.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 200,00 per annum from July 11, 1973 to the full payment of KRW 30,578,801, and KRW 200,000 per annum from the plaintiff 3,578,80, and the plaintiff 3, and 2, etc. to the plaintiff 1. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant through the first and second trials, and a declaration of provisional execution.

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by all the plaintiffs through the first and second trials.

Even if the defendant's legal representative is so, the above accident was caused by the negligence of the non-party 4, who is the possessor who was directly in operation of the above gate as above, and neglected the management of the room and the treatment of smoke as such, thereby neglecting the care necessary for the prevention of damage. Thus, the defendant is not liable for it. However, the possessor who is the owner of the above building is fully responsible for the damage caused by the defect in the construction or preservation of the building as above shall be included not only the direct possessor but also the indirect possessor such as the defendant, who is virtually responsible for the repair of the defect in the course of controlling the building as above. Thus, the above assertion is groundless.

Therefore, as the defendant is the possessor of the above building or the possessor who neglected the management thereof, he cannot be exempted from the obligation to compensate for the damages caused by the above accident due to the defect in the installation and preservation, the amount of the property damage will first be examined.

In full view of the above testimony and the purport of the parties' arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, which can be acknowledged by the testimony of the non-party 8, the above non-party 1 and the non-party 8's testimony, the above non-party 2's testimony and the whole purport of the parties' arguments, it can be acknowledged that the non-party 1 was a man who was born on May 22, 1950 and was working as the automobile maintenance factory park at that time for 22 years and was receiving 29,000 won monthly remuneration, and there is no other evidence contrary to this, the above deceased is 50,000 won per month with his daily average living expenses and money, and therefore, the above deceased can survive up to 85,00 won, which is operated by the general male in light of the average remaining life of the above Korean man who is obvious fact at this court, and as to the above amount, the above non-party 2's monthly wage income tax 】 1,060 won shall also be deducted from the above 975,0.

However, in full view of each evidence from the above, the above non-party deceased is sleep in the room of the non-party 6 of the species. Thus, the above non-party deceased is sleep in his past and sleep, and there is a gap in the floor of the room in his usual room, and the defendant is obligated to take care of not being involved in the accident by checking the kitchen and smelling the smell even on the date of the accident, but it is possible to say that the accident occurred in the mixed with the plaintiff who was under the influence of alcohol even if there was no damage. Thus, the above accident should be offset in calculating the amount of the above damage, so it would be reasonable to compensate the defendant within the limit of the amount of KRW 1,00,000,000 among them.

Although the plaintiff 1 said that the above plaintiff spent 120,000 won as funeral expenses of the deceased, there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

Next, according to the records of the above evidence No. 1 as to the claim for consolation money, it is evident that Plaintiff 1 was living alone of the above deceased, and both Plaintiff 2 and 3 were the male and female sons of the above deceased. In light of the above family relationship, it is evident in light of the empirical rule that the above deceased's death caused mental pain due to the death of the above deceased's accident. In light of the above family relationship or accident circumstances, the degree of competition between the above plaintiff's property status and the above plaintiff's negligence, and the above plaintiff's 50,000 won for funeral expenses from Nonparty 4, and other circumstances shown in the parties' arguments, it is reasonable that the defendant paid 200,000 won to the plaintiff 1, and 100,000 won to the remaining plaintiffs, and it is reasonable that the above plaintiffs suffered mental pain.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is reasonable only within the scope of the defendant's claim for payment of 5% per annum from July 11, 1973 to the full payment of the above money, and the plaintiffs' remaining claims against the plaintiff 1 are without merit. The part against the plaintiff 3 and 2 is modified by the defendant's appeal, and the original judgment against the plaintiff 3 and 2 is just as it is concluded, and all appeals against the plaintiff 1 are dismissed by the defendant's appeal, and the defendant's appeal against the plaintiff 3 and 2 are dismissed by the defendant's judgment as well as by the defendant's appeal against the above judgment against the plaintiff 3 and 2, and the defendant's appeal against each of the above amounts are dismissed by the Civil Procedure Act Article 384, and the defendant's appeal against each of the above amounts are without merit by applying Article 95, 96, 98, 99, and 98, 96, and 98 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Seole Hong (Presiding Judge) Lee (Presiding Judge)