1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiffs' incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. Of the appeal cost, between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the following contents are added after the fifth 16th son of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Defendant asserts that, “A” should also deduct 27,869,940 won from the lost income after the death of the deceased. However, since temporary layoff benefits prescribed in the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act correspond to the lost income during the period of suspension, the amount of temporary layoff benefits shall be deducted only from the amount of damages equivalent to the lost income during the period of suspension (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da6628, Apr. 26, 1994). Since the lost income after the death of the deceased cannot be deemed to correspond to the lost income during the period of suspension, it cannot be deducted from the lost income after the death of the deceased, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, both the defendant's appeal and the incidental appeal of the plaintiffs shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.