1. The remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiffs C and D and the plaintiffs except plaintiffs R, S, U, and W.

The grounds for appeal by plaintiffs C and D, other than the plaintiffs C and D, are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and the evidence submitted by the first instance court is the evidence submitted by this court, and the fact-finding and judgment by the first instance court is justified even if each evidence submitted by this court is presented to this court.

Accordingly, the reasoning for this Court regarding this case is as follows, except for the addition or dismissal as follows, and therefore, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The following details shall be added between the 10th and 5th of the first instance judgment:

In order to pay consolation money for non-property damage suffered by tort, the fact-finding court may, in its discretion, determine the amount of consolation money in consideration of various circumstances. However, in a case where the court determines the amount of consolation money, there is a limit that the amount should be determined in accordance with the general legal sentiment in that time and the general legal sentiment, and in a case where it goes beyond its limit and is obviously contrary to the ideology of fair sharing of damages and the principle of equity, the fact-finding court has exceeded the limits of discretion.

The so-called past history case, which had undergone a truth-finding decision under the Act on the Settlement of History, has passed a long period since the occurrence of the damage, and the Act on the Settlement of History also aims at a uniform recovery of the damage, and there are special circumstances, such as the number of victims.

Therefore, in determining the amount of consolation money for the victims, equity between the victims shall be considered important, and appropriate adjustment is also necessary according to the number of family members claiming compensation for damages.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da235172 Decided August 19, 2015, and Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da202819 Decided May 16, 2013, etc.). “The first instance court of Grade 5 “(1)” refers to “2”.

Court Decision No. 11 of the first instance.