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

A. The Defendant: 15,00,000 won for Plaintiff A, and 15,541,200 won for Plaintiff B.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are parents of the network D (hereinafter “the Deceased”).

B. On November 23, 2007, the defendant has a legal marital relationship between the deceased and two children.

(c)

망인은 2019. 9. 20. 17:14 경 피고에게 전화하여 ’ 번 개탄을 준비하고 술도 샀다.

Down also served as a drink.

It has been difficult to avoid fire, so it has been postponed.

The title is HFC.

“.....”

(d)

On September 21, 2019, the Deceased was found to have died in around 15:52 on September 21, 2019, and as a result of the police investigation, the Deceased was found to have committed suicide by avoiding the openings within the train (hereinafter “instant accident”). [In the absence of dispute, Gap’s statements, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 12, 20, 23, evidence Nos. 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), images, and the overall purport of the arguments and arguments.

2. The Defendant asserts that, as the lineal ascendant or descendant of the deceased was unable to inherit his claim for damages against the Defendant, the instant lawsuit is not a party’s qualification, and thus, the Defendant’s judgment on the defense prior to the merits did not qualify as a party.

On the other hand, in the lawsuit of performance, the eligibility of the party is for the person who asserts that he/she has the right to claim the performance, which is the subject matter of the lawsuit, and the existence of the right to claim the performance should be proved through the deliberation of the merits (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da44387, 44394, Oct. 7, 2005, etc.). The plaintiffs claim the plaintiffs' damages due to the death of the deceased due to the defendant's tort, and therefore the eligibility of the party is recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's defense prior to the merits is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The defendant maintained the relationship between the plaintiffs' work East E and the victim's mental suffering due to the above defendant's improper act and committed suicide. The defendant could have sufficiently predicted suicide of the deceased.