In the calculation of the amount of damages, the reasons for the failure due to the scenarios under the Humman-based Calculation Act are as follows.

The calculation shall be made by the calculation method of the premium rate of 5% per annum, and the amount calculated by the rate of 5/12% per annum shall be the case where there is a difference in the reasoning due to the scenario.

Article 394 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Attorney Cho Jae-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 67Na1623 delivered on December 29, 1967

Plaintiff 4 in the original judgment

Of the part against the Defendant, the part against the Defendant regarding KRW 250,000 shall be reversed;

The case portion is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

Of the costs of the appeal, the part arising from the appeal against the plaintiff 1, 2, and 3 shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigation performer were examined, and the original judgment recognized that the damage of the plaintiff 4 was 13,500 won in calculating the damage of the plaintiff 4's property, and after recognizing that the damage of the plaintiff 4 was 13,500 won in calculating the damage of the plaintiff 4's property, the court below stated that "Dong is 389,267 won (the 23,500 won (the 13,500 error is recognized) [the 389,50 won shall be deemed to be 46,15672469-17, 3212182] as follows:

However, according to the Hofmanial Calculation Act, the above 46,15672469 is not the value of 51 years (18+33) per annum, but the value of 51 percent per annum at the rate of 5/12 percent per annum. The above 17,3212182 is the value of 18 years per annum. Thus, the original judgment is the value of 5/12 percent per annum, and it is obvious that the above 17,3212182 is the value of 18 years with the rate of 5/12 percent per annum, and it is reasonable to discuss

The defendant litigation performer has no assertion in the ground of appeal as to the consolation money portion in the original judgment.

Therefore, from among the part against the defendant against the plaintiff 4 in the original judgment, the part against the defendant as to property damage 250,000 shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court, which is the original judgment. The defendant's remaining appeal shall be dismissed, and the part arising from the appeal against the plaintiff 1, 2, and 3 in the costs of the appeal shall be borne by the defendant and it is so decided as per

Supreme Court Judge Madung (Presiding Judge) Kim Gung-bun and Madlebro