The term "satise" group of satise investments and the term of the general secretary and the year of the operation of the stage supervisor and the social staff.

It is recognized that persons engaged in the scarcity and general affairs, stage supervision, and social affairs of the private shock team can work until the age of 50 in light of the nature of the occupation.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Korea

Seoul Central District Court (65Da4316) in the first instance trial (Supreme Court Decision 65Da4316)

The original judgment shall be modified as follows:

The defendant paid 556,46 won to the plaintiff 1, 387,644 won to the plaintiff 2, and 304,357 won to the plaintiff 3 respectively.

The remaining claims of the plaintiff et al. are dismissed.

The expenses for appeal shall be two minutes, and one shall be borne by the plaintiff, etc., and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant.

In the Disposition 2 of this case, Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2 are entitled to provisional execution of the remaining money except for Plaintiff 2,00,000 won, and Plaintiff 3 are entitled to provisional execution of the remaining money except for Plaintiff 1,50,000 won.

The attorney of the plaintiff et al. paid 1,776,172 won to the plaintiff 1, and 1,217,447 won to the plaintiff 2, and 694,259 won to the plaintiff 3 respectively.

The court costs are assessed against the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution. The defendant's litigation performer is dismissed.

The cost of lawsuit is assessed against the plaintiff, etc.

The defendant litigation performer shall revoke the part against the defendant among the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The plaintiff et al.'s appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff et al.'s appeal is dismissed.

The cost of appeal is assessed against the defendant.

Of the reasons for the decision of a party member, the background of the instant accident and the liability of tort are identical to the reasoning of the original judgment. Therefore, this paper examines the damages claimed by the Plaintiff, etc. in accordance with Article 390 of the Civil Procedure Act.

If the contents of evidence Nos. 1 (No. 1) and 7 (Simplified Life Table) of the court below's witness testimony (except for the part not believed in the future) and the whole purport of the parties' pleadings, the deceased non-party 2, as a male of the Republic of Korea on October 16, 1921, was 49 years and 75 years old as at the time of death due to the accident of this case, unless there are other circumstances, the deceased's remaining life life is 20,75 years, and it was possible to continue to exist until the death of this case. The above deceased was 30,00 won per month by taking charge of general affairs, stage supervision, and social affairs, and the deceased's testimony cannot be acknowledged for the above 100,000 won for the living expenses of the deceased, and the deceased's testimony cannot be acknowledged for the above 10,500,000 won for each of the above 10,500,000 won for the above 10,000.

Therefore, since the above deceased died due to the accident at issue, the plaintiff et al. suffered a loss of expected profits that can be earned for 15,000 won each month for 6 years and 8 months each month, and in this case, the plaintiff et al. claimed on the date and time, so it is obvious in calculating that the present amount is 1,012,937 won calculated by deducting the interim legal interest at the rate of 5% per annum for 6 years and 8 years pursuant to the Hofmanial Calculation Act, and this amount is the amount of loss to the property interest that the non-party 2 may claim temporarily at the time of his death, which shall be the amount of loss to the property interest that the non-party 2 may claim temporarily

However, according to the records in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff 1, as the head of the above deceased, is the head of Australia and the heir of the above deceased, and the plaintiff 3, as the wife of the above deceased, can recognize the fact that the plaintiff 1 is the heir of each property. If the above claim for damages is divided according to the legal share of inheritance, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 2, the plaintiff 37,644 won, and the plaintiff 3, the plaintiff 168,82 won, respectively, by inheritance.

Then, according to the testimony of the non-party 3, the court below's witness, as to the active property damage suffered by the plaintiff 3, the contents of Nos. 5 (Account) and Nos. 6-1 (Receipt) and No. 6-3 (Receipt) which can be recognized as the authenticity by the non-party 4's testimony, and according to the whole purport of the testimony and oral argument of the above witnesses, the plaintiff 3 takes the funeral of the non-party 2, who is his husband of the above witness, as the purchase cost and permanent freight of No. 16,035 won 16,00 won 4,50 won 4,500 won , total sum 35,535 won as non-party 4's non-party 4's non-party 4's testimony, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Finally, the consolation money for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff et al. can be easily acknowledged in light of the empirical rule that his father or her husband will cause a considerable mental pain to the present or future. Meanwhile, according to the contents of Gap evidence No. 1 and the testimony of non-party No. 5 of the original trial witness, the plaintiff No. 1 is 9 years of age, plaintiff No. 2 is 6 years of age, plaintiff No. 33 years of age, and the deceased non-party No. 2 is 1 unit of house, and the plaintiff et al. are dependent on the same person's income at the house owned by the non-party No. 2, and there is no close relation to the plaintiff et al. as above. Considering these circumstances, it is reasonable to pay consolation money for the plaintiff et al. to the plaintiff No. 1 and 2 as well as to the plaintiff No. 50 million won, and to the plaintiff No. 30 million won for the plaintiff et al. al.

If the defendant is a property and mental compensation, and is obliged to pay 556,466 won in money to the plaintiff 1, and 387,644 won in money to the plaintiff 2, and 304,357 won in money to the plaintiff 3 as to the plaintiff 2. Thus, the plaintiff's claim in the principal lawsuit by the plaintiff et al. is justifiable within the scope recognized above, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment below which made a different conclusion is dismissed as to the defendant's appeal is not justified, and the defendant's appeal is partly reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 385, 95, 89, and 199 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Kim Young-young Park