The case where it is recognized that the remaining family members have waived the claim for additional compensation of the deceased.

As the Plaintiff “B” received a gold amount of KRW 83,00 and renounced all claims for damages, it is recognized that the Plaintiff “B” was the wife of the Plaintiff A as the mother of the said deceased, and that the Plaintiff was taking account of the same group and so-called group, and that in full view of the whole purport of the argument, the Plaintiff A expressed his intent to waive the claim on behalf of the Plaintiffs as above.

Article 732 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul Central District Court (72 Gohap3802) in the first instance trial

(1) The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

(2) The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

(3) Of the amount of KRW 1,069,448 executed by the judgment of the sentence of provisional execution No. 72 Gohap3802 against the defendant, the plaintiff 1 shall return 696,299 won, the amount of KRW 373,149 won, and the amount of KRW 373,149 shall be returned respectively.

(4) The costs of lawsuit are assessed against all of the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

(5) The above paragraph (3) can be provisionally executed.

The plaintiffs pay to the plaintiffs 1,627,736 won, 88,868 won to the plaintiffs 2, and 5% interest per annum from July 29, 1971 to the date of full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit cost shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. The plaintiffs, as the cause of the claim, around 13:30 on July 28, 1971, the non-party 1 was playing in the mouth 256, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, Sungyang National School correction, and the head of the non-party was shocked and the non-party died. The cause of the above accident was about 3 meters high and approximately 2 meters high, and the lower part for receiving the above amount was about 1.05 meters high, and thus, the children were at least 0 meters high at the bottom of the above 1.05 meters high, and thus, they did not have an obligation to pay damages to the non-party 1 to the above 6th of the above 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 196th of the above 6th of the 1st of the above 6th of the 2th of the above 2th of the damages.

In light of the above facts, Gap evidence without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1 (Agreement) and the testimony of the non-party 3 and each statement of the non-party 4 and non-party 5 among the results of the record verification at the court below, the non-party 1 did not have the right to claim compensation for damages on behalf of the plaintiff 1's father at the time and place of the plaintiffs' assertion, and he did not have the right to claim compensation for damages on behalf of the non-party 1's head. On the other hand, the non-party 1 did not have the right to claim compensation for damages on behalf of the non-party 1's head, and the non-party 1 was the non-party 3's testimony and the non-party 4 and the non-party 5's testimony at the court below. The non-party 1 did not have the right to claim compensation for damages on behalf of the plaintiff 1 as alleged by the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 1's testimony of the above non-party 7's testimony.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' right to claim compensation for damages in this case was extinguished by the plaintiff 1's declaration of intent to waive the above claim. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim in this lawsuit based on the premise that the claim did not extinguish the above claim should be dismissed because it is no longer necessary to examine the remainder of the claim. Thus, the original judgment different from this conclusion, ordering the defendant to pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 650,000 won, 350,000 won, and 5% per annum from July 29, 1971 to the date of full payment, which is unfair, and the defendant's appeal against this is reasonable and reasonable, to revoke the part against the defendant among the original judgment.

However, the court below imposed a declaration of provisional execution on the whole part against the above defendant, and the plaintiffs executed the same money as the above in the order due to the declaration of provisional execution (no dispute exists between the parties with respect to the same execution). The above provisional execution declaration becomes null and void due to the cancellation of the above part of the original judgment against the above defendant among the original judgment in the party, and therefore, the plaintiffs are obligated to return to the defendant the above amount of money equivalent to the above execution amount. Thus, the defendant's claim for the restoration of the original case for the return of the above execution amount

Accordingly, with respect to the burden of litigation costs and the declaration of provisional execution, it is decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89, 93, 96, and 199 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Judge) expected from Jinology