All appeals are dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In calculating consolation money due to a tort against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant; hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") and the other plaintiffs' assertion of consolation money, the circumstances 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. as well as the situation of the perpetrator, such as the victim's intentional negligence, degree of the perpetrator's intentional 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 discretion in consideration of these various circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da41377 delivered on April 23, 199, and Supreme Court Decision 2007Da77149 delivered on December 24, 2009, etc.). The lower court determined the amount of consolation money, as indicated in its reasoning, by taking into account the various circumstances indicated in the instant case, including the deceased’s age and health condition, the background and result of the instant surgery, the treatment process and degree of negligence of the medical staff of the Defendant hospital, etc.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the determination of the above amount of consolation money by the court below is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the discretionary power as to the calculation of consolation money as alleged in the grounds of appeal

2. With respect to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”)’s assertion of negligence, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined that the Defendant hospital’s medical personnel neglected the duty to operate the Plaintiff’s blood transfusion in a manner that the Defendant hospital’s medical professionals do not damage the blood transfusion by stimulating the crypulping, in the process of performing the crypacting surgery of this case, by neglecting the cryprym, etc., inserted inside the crypian, story, or stoke fishing, and thereby neglecting the duty to dyphosome, and thereby, caused the death of the Deceased due to cerebrova

In light of the relevant legal principles and records.