1. According to the expansion of the purport of the claim in the trial, the defendant shall make 32,051, respectively, to the plaintiff A, 90,128,204 won, the plaintiff C, D, E, and F.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. The Plaintiffs and the co-Plaintiff B of the first instance trial (hereinafter “B”) filed a claim against the Defendant for compensation for part of the mental damage (defensive materials) arising from a tort, and received a favorable judgment in the first instance trial.

B. As to this, the Defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and the Plaintiffs expanded the purport of the claim to seek the full payment of consolation money in the trial before remand, and the Plaintiff withdrawn the instant lawsuit on the grounds that there was no claim for consolation money against the Defendant following the agreement on the division of inherited property.

However, in spite of the expansion of the plaintiffs' claims for compensation, the trial before remanded the judgment that did not clearly calculate and determine the amount of consolation money recognized to the plaintiffs, and that dismissed both the plaintiffs and B's claims extended and the defendant's appeal.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs, B, and the Defendant appealed against each judgment prior to remand. The Supreme Court rendered a declaration of termination of the lawsuit due to the withdrawal of the lawsuit against B on April 7, 2014. ② The judgment on the claim extended in the trial prior to remanding was reversed and remanded, deeming that there was error in the reasoning in the judgment on the claim extension in the trial prior to remanding. ③ The Defendant’s appeal against the Plaintiffs was dismissed.

Therefore, the part against the defendant in the judgment before remand is separated or finalized by the pronouncement of the judgment of remand, so the scope of the trial after remand is limited to the claim extended by the court before remand of the judgment before remand.

2. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this part of the facts of recognition is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following matters:

G. The status of the plaintiffs in Part 9 of the 11st century is "g. the status of the plaintiffs and their inheritance relations".