1. Defendant D shall pay Plaintiff A 167,39,680 won, Plaintiff B 165,839,680 won, Plaintiff C 4,500,000 won, and each of the above.

Basic Facts

On May 23, 2013, at around 02:45, Defendant D: (a) pushed the decedent’s timber on the top of the upper floor of the 1st floor of the Seoul Northern-gu U.S. (hereinafter “the network”) and the elevator in the front of the trial (hereinafter “the instant elevator”); (b) the lower part of the instant elevator’s door fell from the frame, and (c) the decedent fell from the frame, resulting in an accident (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

On June 1, 2013, the Deceased died due to an accident in this case, such as cerebral cerebral cerebral dyssis and dubssis, etc., which had been receiving medical treatment at the Atol University Seoul Epia Hospital.

On May 1, 2014, the Seoul High Court Decision 2013No3900 decided on May 1, 2014, Defendant D sentenced Defendant D to three imprisonment due to assault and death resulting from the instant accident, etc., and the said judgment was finalized on May 9, 2014.

On the other hand, Defendant U.S. Company (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) entrusted the instant elevator management with the instant elevator management by the Hyundai Elevator Company, which entered into an inspection contract with the side of U.S. Building, and managed the instant elevator. Defendant E, F, G, H, I, J, K, M, M, N, P, Q, R, school foundation’s creative lodging, S, and T are co-owners of U.S. buildings (hereinafter “Co-owners”).

As the inheritor of the deceased, there are plaintiffs B, A, and C, who are parents.

[Grounds for recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, Eul evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence No. 7, the overall purport of the pleadings, and the purport of the main defense of the whole pleadings, are asserted to the effect that the lawsuit against defendant Eul should be dismissed as unlawful, since it is argued to the effect that there is no evidence to deem that there was an agreement between the defendant D and the plaintiffs.