Among the part against the plaintiff Y, the part against the plaintiff 5,952,380 won and the part against the delay damages therefor, and the part against the plaintiff Z.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. Examining the records in light of the first ground for appeal, the court below acknowledged facts based on the adopted evidence, and found the defendant's liability for damages due to the defendant's tort is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds for appeal, there is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation

B. Examining the grounds of appeal No. 2 in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court is justifiable to have rejected the Defendant’s ground of extinctive prescription deeming that the Defendant’s ground of appeal constitutes an abuse of rights, and there were no errors by misapprehending

C. As to the ground of appeal No. 3, when calculating consolation money due to a tort, the circumstance on the part of the victim, such as the victim's age, occupation, social status, property and living conditions, degree of suffering from damage, degree of negligence of the victim, etc., along with the victim's intentional intent and negligence, degree of the perpetrator's intentional intent and negligence, motive and cause of the harmful act, and attitude of the perpetrator after the illegal act, are consistent with the principle of fair liability for damages. The court may determine consolation money at its own discretion, taking into account such various circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 98Da41377 delivered on April 23, 199, and 2007Da77149 delivered on December 24, 2009, etc.) In light of the above legal principles and records, the amount of consolation money of this case acknowledged by the court below cannot be deemed to have been excessive to the extent that the amount of consolation money of this case deviates from the limitation of discretion of the court of fact-finding, which is remarkably contrary to the principle of equity.

This part of the ground of appeal is without merit.

2. Where a male who is not Australia dies before the current Civil Code enters into force, with respect to the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff GY, GZ, MX, OF, OG, and OS, that property shall be equal to that of the lineal descendant.