Of the costs of appeal by the defendant, the costs of appeal by the defendant shall be borne by the defendant, and the costs of appeal by the plaintiff 3, 4, and 5 shall be borne by the above plaintiffs.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs, while the plaintiffs 3, 4, and 5 shall revoke the part against plaintiffs 3, 4, and 5 in the original judgment. The defendant shall pay to plaintiffs 3, 4, and 5 money with the rate of 5 percent per annum from June 28, 1974 to the date of full payment. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants in both the first and second instances.

However, the defendant's legal representative was suffering from the dismissal of the above place of business, after the accident occurred at 9 June 27, 1974 when the accident occurred, the non-party 1 went to work at 6 p.m., and went to 6 p.m.., but the non-party 1 went to the Gyeong-nam Kim-gun, Busan, which was his non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1'.

Therefore, according to the above evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, which had no dispute over the scope of damages, the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased, and the plaintiff Nos. 3 and 5 can be recognized as their children. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 26 of the Conflict of Laws Act, the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3, 4, and 5 are equally inherited by the above deceased's wife and 6 children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children.

The attorney of the plaintiff et al., at the time of the above accident, the deceased non-party 2 opened a restaurant at the time of the above accident (title omitted), and there was a net profit of 161,400 won per month, and claimed compensation for damages therefrom. Accordingly, according to the testimony of the non-party 5 and the non-party 6 of the court below, the plaintiff et al. expecting that the above deceased would have profitability as mentioned above 9 days before the present accident occurred, and the (title omitted) counter-point of the above argument is expected to open a restaurant. It is recognized that the witness's testimony on the profitability of the witness's testimony was newly opened, but the witness's testimony on the profitability only 9 days after the opening point in light of the testimony at the trial of the above non-party 6 witness, and it appears that the above level of profit should be expected and desired if it is maintained for the enterprise that could not have actually considered the profits. Thus, the above assertion is rejected as it cannot be calculated as profits at the time of the above accident.

Meanwhile, according to the above evidence, since the above deceased's negligence without a lighting device even though it was at night at the time of the accident, the above deceased's negligence is deemed concurrent in operating the bicycle, it is reasonable to compensate only the amount of KRW 7,131,141 recognized by the court below, and the above deceased's right to claim damages shall be inherited in proportion to the share of inheritance as provided by the Chinese Civil Code, with the amount of KRW 3,4,37,047, respectively.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs received severe mental pain due to the death of non-party 2 can be easily recognized in light of our rule of experience. Thus, in order to give the above mental distress, the above deceased's status and various circumstances shown in this case are considered to be 300,000 won for the above deceased and 100,000 won for each of the plaintiffs. The above deceased's consolation money also succeeded to 100,000 won for each of the plaintiffs 3,4, and 5, respectively. Accordingly, the consolation money to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff 3, 4, and 5 shall be 200,000 won for each of them.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 and 2 the damages for delay at an annual rate of 5% from June 28, 1974 to the date following the occurrence of the accident, with 2,577,047 won in total, and 2,377,047 won in property damages to the plaintiff 3, 4, and 5, and 200,000 won in total, respectively, and with the damages for delay at an annual rate of 5% from June 28, 1974 to the date following the occurrence of the accident. Thus, the plaintiffs' claims for this case are accepted within the limit recognized above, and the remainder shall be dismissed without any justifiable reason. Accordingly, all appeals filed by the defendant and the plaintiff 3, 4, and 5 with respect to the original judgment to the same purport are dismissed pursuant to Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the bearing of the costs for appeal shall be decided as per Disposition by the court below by applying Articles 89, 93, and 95.

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)