1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows. A.

Defendant.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except that part of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The calculation table of the amount of damages under the 13th of the judgment of the first instance shall be replaced by that of the 7th of the judgment.

The 6th direction of the 8th sentence of the first instance court shall be changed to "Direction".

The 9th 20th 20th 1st 20th 20th 1st 20th 1st 20th 20th 1st 3th 3th 202.

On the 6 to 7th of the first instance court's decision, "the average income between 6 to 7" portion shall be as follows.

2,345,132 won, an average monthly income [2,302,873 won (507,108 won/12 months of annual salary), and evidence A 61] of the first instance judgment, which is 2,345,132 won [2,302,873 won of monthly salary], shall be replaced by the following table:

The 10th 15th 10th 10th 15th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 202

The 11th to 7th of the judgment of the first instance court shall be followed as follows.

[A] Objects of Inheritance: 390,452,064 won (=318,452,064 won 72,000 won 72,000 won) of the first instance judgment of the court of first instance shall be calculated as follows: 195,226,032 won (=390,452,064 won x 1/2) of the first instance judgment of the court of first instance (i.e., 390,452,064) 11-12 of the first instance judgment of the court of first instance (i.e., 192).

The first instance court's decision of 207,476,032 won (i.e., inheritance amount of KRW 195,226,032, funeral expenses of KRW 2,250,000, respectively) and its 11th to 12th, respectively.

3. According to the conclusion, with respect to the plaintiffs (1) as to 207,476,032 won each and 197,585,461 won each cited in the first instance trial among them, it is reasonable for the above defendant to dispute the existence and scope of his/her duty from January 9, 2016, which is the date of the accident in this case.