beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
Defendant 29,532,687 won, Plaintiff B, and C respectively. 300.
Reasons
1. Scope of the judgment of this court;
A. The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for damages for KRW 80,72,505, Plaintiff B, and C, respectively, and damages for delay against each of the said money. On November 4, 2011, the court of first instance revoked the part of the Plaintiffs’ appeal against the Plaintiffs regarding KRW 19,501,967, and KRW 300,000 and each of the said money to the Plaintiffs from March 18, 2005 to November 4, 201; KRW 5% per annum from the date of full payment; and KRW 20% per annum from the following day to November 4, 2011; the part of the Plaintiffs’ appeal against the Plaintiffs against the Plaintiff was dismissed; the Defendant’s appeal against the Plaintiff was dismissed; the Defendant’s appeal against the part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff was dismissed; the Defendant’s appeal against the Plaintiff was dismissed, and all of the appeals against the Defendants were dismissed.
3. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the part against the plaintiff in the judgment before remand.
B. According to the scope of adjudication, since the plaintiffs' claims are all confirmed by the judgment of remanding, the scope of adjudication by this court is the whole of the plaintiffs' claims. However, since the plaintiffs expand their claims in the trial, it is the object of adjudication to expand the purport of the claims.
The claims to be tried in this case are examined.
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition (1) D driving a cab around 15:30 on March 18, 2005, and driving a road of about 10 meters wide from the front vehicular road and the sidewalk located in Samsung-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, without any distinction between the front vehicular road and the sidewalk, at the boundary of the Gangnam Police Station, the right edge of the Plaintiff A, which was coming from the left edge of the Mad taxi, was turned to the front edge of the Mad-si, thereby getting off the right edge of the Plaintiff A, who was coming from the front edge of the Mad-si.