1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following additional payment order.

Ⅰ. The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, excluding the entry from 9.2 to 10.11 of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding the entry of 9.2 to 10.11 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the entry of 11.2 of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding the entry of 9.2 to 10.4. conclusion, according to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the remaining reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance citing the above reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance citing the above reasons for the judgment, and

Ⅱ Change of the reasoning of the first instance judgment

1. Change of description between nine pages 2 and 11 of the judgment of the court of first instance;

C. The Plaintiffs asserted that (i) the amount of lost earnings calculated by applying the urban daily wage in the second half of 2015, which is close to the date of the closure of the arguments in the fact-finding court, should be KRW 242,143,801, and the Defendant would have to pay KRW 152,940,480 to the Plaintiffs as bereaved family's benefits, if the Defendant offered KRW 89,203,321 as bereaved family's benefits.

⑵ 판단(다만 계산의 편의상 마지막 월 미만과 원 미만은 각 버리고, 손해 금액의 사고 당시 현가 액 산정은 월 5/12%의 비율로 중간이자를 제하는 단리할인법에 따른다) ㈎ 인정 사실과 평가 내용 ① 성별과 생년월일: Q 생의 남성 ② 사망일: 2010. 12. 28. ③ 사고 당시 나이: 10세 3개월 남짓 ④ 기대 여명: 67.60년(갑 제3호증) ⑤ 소득: 월 1,970,452{= 89,566원(갑 제45호증)[망인은 학생으로서 월급이나 월 실수입이 존재하지 아니하였으므로, 피해를 본 당시의 평균임금으로 유족급여액을 산정하여야 하고, 이때의 ‘피해’란 장래의 수입 상실을 의미하므로, ‘피해를 본 당시의 평균임금’이란 취업 가능 기간의 평균임금이라고 할 것이다.

However, the plaintiff will obtain at least a certain amount of daily wage in the future.