The same plaintiffs' claim as to the revoked part, the remaining appeals against the same plaintiffs as the defendant and the remaining appeals against the other plaintiffs are dismissed, respectively.

The litigation costs of the first and second instances arising between the plaintiff 2, 3, and 4 and the defendant are divided into three minutes, and three of them are assessed against the defendant, and the remaining part is assessed against the same defendant, and the costs of appeal arising between the remaining plaintiffs and the defendant are assessed against the defendant.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

All the costs of the first and second trials shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

As evidence No. 7-1 to 8 (in case of non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's evidence No. 5-2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 7's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's.

Therefore, the above accident caused the conflict between the above engineer's defect in the preservation of the brake system of the above engineer's building owned by the defendant and the above engineer's worker's duty of care in the vulnerable driving area of the above engineer's 1 and the above engineer's negligence in driving at a speed of not less than 27 km per hour (in accordance with the evidence, etc. mentioned above, even if the above engine's air control system was poor at a speed of less than 20 cc per hour, if the plaintiff's air control system was concluded rapidly at a speed of less than 20 cc per hour, it is recognized that the effect of the consent could have been seen, and part of the evidence No. 7 No. 7-2 against the above recognition was not believed, and there is no other counter-proof evidence, which is contrary to the above recognition. Meanwhile, according to the statement of No. 1-3 (each family register copy), the plaintiff 1's wife of the deceased non-party 3, the plaintiff 5's mother, and the plaintiff 6 and the plaintiff 2's mother.

However, according to the witness non-party 4's testimony, the non-party 3, as an institutional investigation, performed internal exchange operations from the above company northwest to 14:02 on the same day, and was exempted from 84 trains starting from 16:00 to 16:00, and returned to 16.0, it can be recognized that the above 1066 trains departing from the above work hours were occupied without permission, and the accident occurred. Thus, the non-party 3's occurrence of damages caused by the accident in this case conflicts with the above recognition by the same non-party. Thus, it should be considered in determining the damages amount of this case against the non-party 3.

In addition, since Nonparty 2 is an institutional investigation of the above agency, it is also required that Nonparty 1, an engineer of the above agency, should have been given a duty of care to assist the above agency in order not to set the secondary operation period, such as the conclusion of the power generation operation, etc., if a train is speeded by setting the operation period at the above level slope point, as seen above, and as such, Nonparty 2, the above agency company, as well as the duty of care to have taken measures not to set the secondary operation period, such as providing assistance to the above agency company as soon as possible. As such, the negligence of the above non-party who did not take such measures, and the degree of negligence is concurrent as part of

2. Scope of loss;

(A) Property damage

(1) To pay daily salaries and allowances;

Nos. 1-3 of evidence Nos. 1-2 and 1, 2-1, 2 (Entrustment and Contents of Summary Life Table) of evidence Nos. 4-1 to 6 (each wage bags) which are acknowledged to have been genuine by Non-Party 5's testimony, and considering the whole purport of testimony and oral argument of the witnesses as evidence Nos. 4-1 to 33 of evidence Nos. 1-2, and Non-Party 3 were male who left 30 years of age and 7 months of age at the time of the accident of this case, and such presumption of presumption remains 33 years of age, and the deceased Non-Party 2 received the same amount of money No. 1 to 333 years of age and 6 months as of April 11, 1943 as well as the amount of money No. 1 to be paid as bonus No. 97 of this case's allowance after this case's testimony. The Non-Party 3 received the same amount of money No. 1 to be paid as bonus No. 97.

Therefore, if the same non-party did not die due to the accident of this case, among the items (b) of the same table, the sum of the amounts stated in the above paragraph (a) above is 3rd grade for each month, the amount of taxes listed in the same table (e) and contributions stated in the same table (f) as at the time of request against him can be received in sequence as salary and the amount stated in the above paragraph (c) as bonus in three equal annual rates. As for the above salary, it should be lost due to the accident of this case, at least 3 is for 24 years and 5 years until the age of retirement, 21 and 5 months (for a bonus as requested, less than 3rd grade for a year), 208 (e) and 4000 won per annum for a bonus x 97 days, 209 won per annum x 97 days for a bonus x 2085% per annum x 97 days for an accident of this case, 309 won and 297 days for an accident of this case 50.25% per annum.

(2) On-going retirement pension

In full view of the purport of the argument in the statement of evidence Nos. 8-1, 2 (Retirement Certification Board), which does not dispute the establishment, Nonparty 3 was appointed as a public official on March 22, 1974, and served as an agency investigation at the office of the Incheon City Agency in October 31, 1967, and died due to the accident of this case. Thus, unless there is any counter-proof, unless there is any special circumstance, the above recognition's retirement age was at least the same occupation until the above recognition's retirement age was set at the same occupation, and the retirement pension under the Public Officials Pension Act at the time of the above recognition's retirement pension under the salary level at the time of the above recognition's accident (the contribution was deducted from the above retirement age to the retirement age). Thus, the non-party 3 was unable to receive a lump sum payment until the death (the amount of contribution was calculated in accordance with the attached Table No. 2, and thus, the non-party 2, as well as the calculation of the amount in attached Table No. 2, shall be deemed as the non-party 383.

(c) Expenses for boarding;

The plaintiff et al. claimed that the above non-party et al. sought compensation as revenue loss since they received 5,500 won as travel expenses for each month in the course of their daily service. However, the travel expenses for the work on board are paid based on the amount consumed on the local consumption at each business trip due to its nature, and it does not go to the lost income. Therefore, its assertion cannot be accepted.

(4) The defendant alleged that the plaintiff 1, who is the deceased non-party 3's bereaved family member after the accident of this case, paid KRW 1,068,480 as a lump sum for bereaved family members, KRW 371,254 as a lump sum for bereaved family members, KRW 89,040 as funeral expenses, and KRW 93,120 as a lump sum for bereaved family members who are the deceased non-party 2's bereaved family members, as a lump sum for bereaved family members, and KRW 32,917 as funeral expenses, as a lump sum for bereaved family members, the amount should be deducted from the damages of this case. However, even if such money was paid by the defendant, funeral expenses would not be an issue in this case where the plaintiffs did not claim funeral expenses as damages, and thus, it cannot be said that the defendant's allegation that the amount of bereaved family members' benefits and bereaved family members' benefits paid under the Public Officials Pension Act would not have the economic nature of the above public officials' social security system to improve their livelihood and welfare.

Therefore, property damage suffered by Nonparty 3 due to the accident of this case is 7,909,197 won (6,215,758 +1,205,256+48,183). Property damage suffered by Nonparty 2 is 8,427,938 won (6,80,059 +1,255,802 +372,077). However, considering the above Nonparty’s negligence, it is reasonable to determine that Nonparty 3 is 5,50,000 won for Nonparty 2 as 6,50,000 won, respectively.

그런데 이들 손해금은 같은 소외인들의 사망으로 인하여 소외 3의 부분은 원고 1에게 금 2,200,000원(5분의2) 원고 5에게 금 3,300,000원(5분의3)이 각 상속되고, 같은 김종믄의 부분은 원고 2와 원고 4에게 각 금 1,300,000원씩(각 5분의1) 원고 3에게 금 3,900,000원(5분의3)이 각 상속되었다 할 것이다.

(B) Consolation money

Since the non-party 3 and the non-party 2 died due to the accident in this case, the plaintiffs in the status quo above are easily recognized in light of the empirical rule that they received severe mental suffering. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to act as a monetary payment, and considering the circumstances leading up to the accident in this case, the plaintiffs' status status, living level, and all other circumstances shown in the arguments as above, it is reasonable to pay 300,000 won to the plaintiff 1 and 2 as consolation money, and 10,000 won to the plaintiff 5, 5, 3, and 4 respectively.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 2,500,000 won and 3,500,000 won to the plaintiff 5, 100,000 won to the plaintiff 6, 1,600,000 won to the plaintiff 2, 4,100,000 won to the plaintiff 3, 4,0000 won to the plaintiff 4,50,0000 won to the plaintiff 4, and 1,50,000 won to the plaintiff 4, and 5% per annum from November 4, 1975 to the full payment date as requested by the plaintiffs after the accident occurred. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim for this case is justified within the scope of recognition, and since the other parts are without merit, the remaining parts of the defendant's appeal against the plaintiff 9, and the part of the appeal against the plaintiff 2 and the remaining parts of the defendant's appeal against the plaintiff 4,000 won are revoked and are without merit.

【Attachment Table omitted】

Judges Kim Dal-sik (Presiding Judge)