1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following additional payment order.

1. The reasoning for this part of the underlying facts is as follows: (a) except for the addition of “written evidence No. 3” to the third (which is the basis for recognition) of the judgment of the court of first instance, the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b)

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for mental damage caused by the accident of this case as a tort.

Furthermore, with respect to the scope of compensation for damages, although the plaintiffs actually suffered injury due to the accident of this case are insignificant, it was highly likely that the plaintiffs would suffer serious injury in light of the risk of the accident of this case. However, in full view of the various circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, including the fact that the plaintiffs voluntarily sold the vehicle Bows, the specific form of the harmful act, the circumstances before and after the accident, and the relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant, the consolation money to be paid to the plaintiffs shall be determined as KRW 4,00

Therefore, the Defendant’s damages for delay of KRW 1,00,000 as cited in the first instance judgment and each of the parts cited in the judgment of the first instance among the costs of KRW 4,000,000 are not included in the scope of the Plaintiffs’ appeal. Accordingly, the starting point recognized by the first instance judgment is the starting point.

Until April 19, 2019, which is the date when the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered, the defendant has a duty to resist the existence and scope of the obligation, and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under each Civil Act from September 21, 2018, which is the day following the day when a copy of the complaint of this case is served, to September 21, 2018, which is the day when the defendant issues an objection as to the existence and scope of the obligation, until February 13, 2020, which is the day when the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered, and 15% per annum under each Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day when the defendant fully pays the obligation.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims are within the scope of the above recognition.