Plaintiff 1 and four others (Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Hong Gyeong-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Asan Social Welfare Foundation (Attorney Shin Jae-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

October 22, 2009

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 20 million won, 20 million won, 3, 4, and 5 each of the above amounts, 5% per annum from March 23, 2004 to November 5, 2009, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendant are all dismissed.

3. One-half of the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 3,419,920,748, 2, 3, 4, and 5 1,000,000 won per annum from March 23, 2004 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the arguments as a result of the request for physical examination of the head of the Gangwon-dong Hospital in this court, as a result of the request for the examination of the medical records to the Association of Korean Doctors of this Court:

A. Status of the parties

The defendant establishes and operates the Seoul Asan Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Hospital") as an incorporated foundation for the establishment and operation of a general hospital or any other medical institution. On March 23, 2004, the plaintiff 1 is a person who took care of vertebral febalutism in order to treat the climatic signboard escape symptoms at the defendant hospital on March 23, 2004. The plaintiff 2 is the wife of the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 3, and the plaintiff 4, and the plaintiff 5 is its mother.

B. Implementation of the Plaintiff 1’s internal equipment and the implementation of the Nonparty 1’s external anti-virative equipment

1) From around July 1998, Plaintiff 1 had symptoms on both arms and left part, but did not receive any specific treatment. From July 2003, Plaintiff 1 was diagnosed as “the ebrate No. 5-6 vertebrate and the 5th left part-hand disease” in the Defendant Hospital’s department outside of the hospital and was diagnosed as “the ebrate No. 5-6 vertebrate and the 5th left part-hand disease,” and received towing, physical therapy, etc. from other medical institutions.

2) On February 25, 2004, Plaintiff 1 continued to perform pain surgery at the Defendant hospital’s hospital’s pain clinic, and was recommended by Nonparty 1 from the medical specialist Nonparty 1 to perform vertebrode surgery at the Defendant hospital. On March 2, 2003 of the same year, the following was confirmed: (a) Non-Party 1 (MRI) of the climatic image test at the above climatic clinic, Non-Party 1 of the medical specialist in the climatic surgery; (b) Non-Party 4-5 (MRI); (c) Non-Party 4-5 (MRI); (d) Non-Party 6-6 (MRI); and (d) Nonparty 6-7 (MRI); and (e) Nonparty 1’s clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific cry.

3) On March 9, 2004, the Plaintiff 1 continued to undergo the climatic mal blocking surgery such as the sub-paragraph (j) of the second claim at the Defendant Hospital, and continued to receive the climatic mal blocking surgery on the left side of the 16th day of the same month.

C. The process of the instant treatment and symptoms of difficulty in respiratorysis

1) On March 23, 2004, the Plaintiff 1 continued pain despite the above procedure, to undergo the surgery on March 23, 2004 at the above pain clinic, and the Defendant hospital’s medical personnel performed the above procedure at around 14:10 on the same day. The Defendant hospital’s medical personnel injected the above procedure at around 0.5ml on tide X-ray, and confirmed the above Plaintiff’s symptoms’s autopsy’s autopsy shape and quantity at the time of drilling, and then inserted it with the goal of inserting the back to the back of the back of the air space, and then added it to the back of the sclinine (trifin 20mix) and the scinine (lidin 20mix) anesthesia and the scinary anesthesia (lidin 1cine) anesthesia (hereinafter “the above Plaintiff’s scinary anesthesia treatment”). The Plaintiff 1’s ecinine added the above Plaintiff’s ecinine to the bar.

2) Accordingly, at around 15:20 on the same day, the medical professionals at Defendant Hospital moved Plaintiff 1 to the recovery room, while taking emergency measures, such as amping vialbu-baging. At that time, the level of oxygen was 95-98%. The medical professionals at Defendant Hospital continued to take measures, such as ampling and ampling vial-outing the Plaintiff 1, and went out Nonparty 2 at around 16:35, after the Defendant Hospital 16:5, took measures such as inserting a ampl-outing, inserting a ampl-outring machine, and started to operate an artificial absorption machine. At around 17:08, the Plaintiff 1 started re-explosioning the MMA duct, and changed to the engine insertion on the same day. At around 18:00 on the same day, the Plaintiff 1 appeared to have re-explosiond the me at around 19:25 on the same day.

D. After the procedure of this case

1) On March 23, 2004, the day of the instant treatment, Plaintiff 1 showed symptoms having difficulty in repulmon as described in the preceding paragraph, and the Maliba flaf dynasium showed symptoms, and around March 19:15, 2004, the day of the treatment. As a result, a wide range of marcing from brain training to March 31, 2004, and the result of the light MRI examination conducted on March 31, 200, also showed a observation of the spreading marcsis up to the training, light, and breast water.

2) While the Plaintiff 1 had improved consciousness after the instant treatment, it was in a state where all physical spawn and spawn with the sense of 3rd or lower during the instant treatment could have been exposed to communication, and symptoms, such as the respiratory part, spawn disorder, spawn rain, etc., are fixed, and there is no possibility of improvement due to future treatment.

3) After the instant treatment, Plaintiff 1 showed the symptoms of pulmonary and pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary and pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary

2. Medical knowledge; and

(a) Conical signboards escape certificates;

In accordance with the decline change of conical signboards, it is a disease that causes a cryp and a chronic disorder by sticking out some or all of the nules as the heat of the fiber in the inner side of the fiber or the outer fiber, surrounding the nules, and pressure the cryp of the cryp and the cryp of the crypical cryp.

(b) General treatment methods of conical signboards escape certificates;

When the symptoms are short or not severe, pharmacologic treatment (pharmacologic treatment, root therapy, etc.) or physical therapy, etc. shall be conducted when the symptoms are short or serious, and when there is no climatic or severe symptoms in the treatment, it can be seen that the therapy method, such as climatic marism or climatic marism, etc., or where there is no climatic or severe symptoms, it is necessary to conduct climatic pressure therapy when the climatic symptoms continue or it is accompanied by the climatic symptoms.

(c) Rabrochissis;

The treatment method to alleviate pain is used mainly in the case of severe pains and non-discharges on the part of the body, such as the climatic anesthesia, the outer border of the climatic body surrounding water, and it is also used to inject the stroke together with the national anesthesia for infection effect (In this case, ESI (ESI; Epidural Ltd.). The merger symptoms that may arise after the procedure are low blood pressure, light-blitho, nephthal damage, nephal damage, the clisome, the climatic species, the climatic species, and addiction symptoms, etc.

(d) Snevenition blocking;

1) Definition: The part of neutism, which is divided from brain, from each disc, is called nebroot. The neveroot block means a procedure to reduce pain by directly influorating national anesthesias and scarkes, etc. on the nephan of radioactive rays, which is the cause of pain. The method is to prevent neutic neutism, after determining neutines through clinical dogs, ephical ephical ephicals, ephical ephicals, etc., and then block neutic nephys while using nephines under X.

2) Specific treatment method for light galversary surgery: three string paths of the front, side and rear bank, and common side. X-ray above x-ray x-ray, in which a string part is cut, and a string part is drawn up. The line connecting the end of the talvers with the 6th parallel diameter, 1.5cm lower or lower from the tring line, and 0.5cm from the tring line to the tring line, and then the end of the tring line are cut up to 0.5cm from the tring line. The tring line is extended to the 6th parallel line, making it easy for the tring part of which is 1.5cm or more, and then the tring part of which is less than 1.5cm or less, to be put under the talversary block, and then it is easy for the tring part of which is less than 1.5cm or less, to be put under the inner block.

3) Merger certificate: Injection by a person who has a salone’s blood or injection into the salone’s blood (in the event of a salone’s blood, it shall be the blood species, and shall be pressured by an engine. Since injection of a national anesthesia into the salone’s bloodline is caused by light, it shall immediately be administered by an artificial smoking and anti-salary agents). Other side effects that may occur include infections, anti-salone local identification, gymosis (pathy, pulmonary paralysis, food and clothing room, etc.), side effects on medicines (Korean anesthesias, saloids, saloids, etc.), side effects on the operation materials (infecting, disinfecting, and operating locks).

4) Expected effects: The diagnosis usefulness for the determination of the level of pains is high, and is also used in such a way as to preserve the radioactive system and the radioactive pains, etc. It is also used in such a way as to treat them. It is effective for diseases with chronic symptoms, such as protruding, spine brate, etc. as treatment means.

(e) Cause of the outbreak of sea-lights and outbreak;

Apinal test refers to symptoms of the collapse of a single body because a large number of blood transfusions are prevented, and is generated by various causes, such as the existing Easter disease, low blood pressure, cardiomactic pressure, coloring operation, coloring, heart organs, infection, pregnancy, flachi, and credit.

As in the instant procedure, the cause of the occurrence of the blood disorder in the course of the instant surgery is one of the following: (1) where the occurrence of the same is caused by a brush or medicine, and (2) where the brush is administered by a medicine, the occurrence of the blood brush by the medicine; (3) influence into the blood brue or brue; and (4) influence of the surgery during the surgery.

3. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiffs' assertion

A) The medical professionals at Defendant Hospital 1 put in 5 times in 15:20 after the procedure of this case while the procedure of this case, she was found to have been in fluencing three times, and there is a high possibility that the flucencing drugs such as knife, stroke, stroke, etc. have come into the brucing body, and even if not, it was damaged by Plaintiff 1’s excessive pressure on the operation of the procedure of this case due to increase in flucencing or anesthesias used at the time of the procedure of this case, and thereby, Plaintiff 1’s glucenction symptoms occurred. (B) At 15:20 days after the procedure of this case, the medical professionals at Defendant Hospital moved to the recovery room, especially after the treatment room 30 minutes after the treatment room of this case, it was difficult for Plaintiff 1 to explain the symptoms of this case, such as the symptoms of this case, which could have been delayed due to the discovery of the symptoms of this case.

Ultimately, the defendant is the employer of the medical staff belonging to the defendant hospital or the party to the contract of this case with the plaintiff 1, and is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the mistake of the medical staff belonging to the defendant hospital.

2) The defendant's assertion

A) The medical professionals at Defendant Hospital did not err in the procedure such as injecting knife with knife with knife with knife with knife with knife with knife with knife, etc. The symptoms of Plaintiff 1 were direct cause of knife with mare, which appears to be due to ① pressure or chrone with anesthesia, anesthesia, or chrone with chrone with chrone, ② chrone with chrone with chrone or chrone with chrone with chrone, etc., even if the medical professionals at Defendant Hospital fulfilled the best duty of due care, so it is impossible to avoid this procedure because it is possible for the medical professionals at Defendant Hospital to take the best duty of care. ② As a result, it is highly probable that Plaintiff 1’s artificial chrone with chrone and chrone with its previous surgery without being affected by Defendant 1’s disease treatment.

(b) the existence of negligence in the procedure;

1) Criteria for determination

In a case where a doctor claims compensation for damages on the ground that a medical act constitutes a tort due to a doctor's violation of the duty of care, as in the general tort, there should be causation between the negligence in the medical act and the occurrence of damage, and the burden of proof on the patient shall be borne by the patient. However, the medical act requires highly specialized knowledge. However, the medical procedure is an area where the patient himself/herself needs high level of expertise, and only his/her doctor can be known in addition to the patient himself/herself, and the medical method to achieve the result of the medical treatment depends on his/her own discretion. Thus, it is extremely difficult for an ordinary person, not an expert, to clarify whether the medical procedure was in violation of the duty of care, or whether there was a causal relationship between the violation of the duty of care and the damage. Thus, it can be presumed that the symptoms were a violation of the duty of care due to proving various indirect facts that are difficult to deem other than the violation of the duty of care due to the symptoms immediately after the medical procedure was conducted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da679797.

2) Facts recognized

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the evidence and the overall purport of the pleadings admitted as seen earlier:

A) From around 1998, Plaintiff 1 suffered symptoms on both arms and left part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the body. From July 2003, 2003, Plaintiff 1 was diagnosed as “the vertebrate Nos. 5-6 and the 5th anniversary of the left part of the upper part of the body,” and was towed by another medical institution.

B) On February 25, 2004, the plaintiff 1 was diagnosed as the RI test conducted by the defendant hospital on February 25, 2004 as the RI test conducted by the defendant hospital Nos. 4-5, No. 5-6, and No. 6-7. The non-party 1, a medical specialist outside the defendant hospital, recommended the non-party 1 to conduct vertebalutism in the defendant hospital, and the above plaintiff was administered by the non-party 2 of the medical specialist outside the defendant hospital on March 2, 2004, which was administered by the non-party 2 of the CEI, which was the c-ESI procedure for the c-SI procedure for the c-SI procedure for the c-SI procedure for the balute balute 16th of the same month.

C) Around 14:10 on March 23, 2004, Nonparty 2, a medical specialist of the Defendant Hospital, performed the psychotropic root blocking surgery against Plaintiff 1. At the time, he inserted the bruth to the end of the drilling, inserted the crodinon 20 meters back to the back of the drilling, connected the sacinon 20 meters of the sacinon and the sacine 1cc) with the saccines containing the sacin sacine 1cc, and then filled the sacin sathn with the sacine on a full scale, after putting the sacin into the sacine with the Plaintiff 1.

D) The symptoms of the Plaintiff 1 during the instant treatment, such as respiratory and scarma, etc., are presumed to be the main cause of the bale color due to the blood disorder of the bloodline, depending on the neutism.

3) Determination

A) According to the facts acknowledged earlier, since Plaintiff 1 complained of cryposis and cryposis before the instant procedure, and it does not seem to have any special obstacle to the movement, such as walking themselves immediately before the instant procedure, even before the instant procedure, such cryposis and cryposis in the event of pressure or damage to the cryposis, which is the medical department immediately after the instant procedure. It does not appear that Plaintiff 1 had any cryposis or cryposis in the medical record before the instant procedure. At the time of the instant procedure, the above Plaintiff 1 did not appear to have an opinion of crypryption, etc. to the above Plaintiff at the time of the instant procedure, such as cryposis surgery immediately before the instant procedure. Since it was diagnosed before the instant procedure, the possibility that the instant cryposis cryposis was caused by the Plaintiff’s cryposis, etc., and the Defendant was not aware of any other reasons such as the Plaintiff’s crypumposis in the instant procedure.

4) Whether it is an inevitable accident due to Plaintiff 1’s physical talented novel, or king Certificate

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that, at the time of the instant treatment, beer and beer, caner and beer, or beer and beer by anesthesia, anesthesia, or sted are inevitably caused by Plaintiff 1’s physical talent or salking.

In the case of Plaintiff 1, there is no evidence to prove that the physical spawnosis or spawnosis is particularly vulnerable to the stimulation caused by the instant procedure, and the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected.

C. Whether the emergency treatment was delayed after the instant procedure

The plaintiffs' assertion that the medical personnel of Defendant Hospital delayed the diagnosis of Plaintiff 1's respiratory difficulty, satisfying symptoms, and neglected to take necessary emergency measures, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, and thus, the plaintiffs' assertion on this is not accepted.

D. Whether the obligation to explain is violated

In general, a doctor has a duty to explain the symptoms of a disease, treatment method and necessity, anticipated risk, etc. to the patient or his/her legal representative in light of the current medical standards and to allow the patient to choose whether to receive such medical treatment by sufficiently comparing the necessity or risk of the patient's necessity or risk (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da3421 delivered on January 20, 195, etc.).

According to the health class, Gap evidence No. 5, and the medical record appraisal report of the Korean Medical Association of this Court on March 16, 2004, which was prior to the instant procedure, stated that the defendant hospital's doctor explained the risks of the instant surgery to the plaintiff 1 ("total block explanation"), but there was no detailed statement on the above medical record. The medical personnel of the defendant hospital conducted the instant surgery twice prior to the instant procedure, and the plaintiff 1 appears to have omitted specific explanation on the purpose, method, possible side effects, etc. of the instant surgery, which were used as a relatively simple procedure, and there was no specific explanation on the patient's side effects of the instant surgery such as the instant surgery, such as the instant surgery, etc., which were caused by the Plaintiff's diagnosis purpose, and thus, the Defendant did not sufficiently explain that there was any damage to the patient's treatment of this case, and thus, it cannot be seen that there was no specific explanation on the Plaintiff's consent to the instant surgery.

E. Limitation of liability

1) Where a harmful act and the factors on the part of the victim occur or expanded as a result of the concurrent act, even though the factors on the part of the victim are irrelevant to the causes on the part of the victim, such as the risk of physical talent or disease, in case where the compensation for the whole damages is contrary to the principle of fairness and fairness, the court may apply the legal principle of comparative negligence to determine the amount of compensation, and take into account the factors on the part of the victim who contributed to the occurrence or expansion of the damages (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da16713, Jun. 24, 2005, etc.).

2) Examining this case in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the facts acknowledged as seen earlier, in the case of Plaintiff 1, the following circumstances are acknowledged: (a) Plaintiff 1 appeared to have been showing the escape symptoms of the protruding part No. 5-6 and 6-7 before the instant procedure; (b) there is no possibility of inevitable evaculation due to evaculation, etc.; (c) but in the case of spinal hemal he cannot be ruled out to have been responsible for all of the medical personnel because the possibility of inevitable evaculation cannot be ruled out due to evaculation, etc.; (d) given that the state of the patient is changing from treatment to treatment time, even if the medical personnel treat the patient with all skills of modern medicine, it is impossible to completely avoid any unexpected outcome; (b) in light of the fact that it is reasonable for Defendant’s hospital to share all physical exercise and the Plaintiff’s total damages incurred by 30 times or less up to 50 days after the instant surgery to 2906% of the total damages compensation for 26060 days through 296.26.5 days.

4. Scope of liability for damages

The basis of calculation, expenditure, calculation, and amount of the property, mental damage suffered by Plaintiff 1 due to the instant medical accident are as shown in the corresponding item of the attached Table of calculation of damages in addition to the following separate statements (Provided, That it shall be calculated at the present price at the time of the instant accident according to the simple discount method that deducts intermediary interest by the ratio of 5/12 per month, and it shall be discarded below the cost and below the last month for the convenience of calculation).

A. The plaintiff 1's actual income

(i) the facts of recognition and evaluation;

A) Personal information: The same shall apply to the description in the column of basic matters in the attached Form of damages calculation sheet.

B) The life expectancy and the end date of the life expectancy: 50 full-scale master’s name can be recognized as having been nine years, and barring any special circumstance, Plaintiff 1 is deemed to continue to exist until March 23, 2013, when nine years have elapsed from the date of the instant accident.

C) Occupation and maximum working age: From March 1, 2001 to March 1, 2001, Plaintiff 1 operated jointly with Nonparty 3 (50% of the above Plaintiff’s equity ratio) from the new forest dong in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Seoul Special Metropolitan City”), Plaintiff 1’s maximum working age, a doctor, shall be deemed to be until he reaches 65 years of age (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da3158, Sept. 14, 1993, etc.).

(d)financial assessment of operating capacity;

Plaintiff 1 calculated the business income amount of the above hospital at the time of the final return on the tax base of global income tax, etc. for the year 2003 (=total income amount of 417,177,015- Necessary income amount of 290,190,249) while jointly operating Nonparty 3 and the members of the above hospital. At the final return on the tax base of global income tax, etc. for the year 2004, the business income amount was calculated as 37,066,372 (=total income amount of 113,052,295- Necessary expenses of 75,985,923). At the tax office having jurisdiction over the above tax amount, the business income amount related to the above hospital of Plaintiff 1 was determined according to the above report. From January 2003 to March 3, 2004, the total amount of each of the above amounts can be deemed as actual income amount, and the income amount calculated according to the above ratio of the Plaintiff’s income amount is calculated 1636,76,76,7.76.6.

(3) Plaintiff 1 is difficult to find that the monthly average income of Plaintiff 1 was 3,684,098 won (=13,052,295 won x 1/3) until the month of the instant accident, and the part corresponding to the above Plaintiff’s share out of the monthly average expenses of Plaintiff 1 is 17,030,619 won (=408,734,856 won x 12/12) in light of the total expenses of the pertinent year, and it is difficult to find that Plaintiff 1 was 20,653,479 won on average in 204, and it is difficult to find that Plaintiff 1 was 30,000 won on average in 30,000 won (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200, Mar. 17, 2004; 200,000 won on average in 30,000 won).

Ultimately, it is reasonable to view that Plaintiff 1 could have earned income equivalent to KRW 10,936,875 per month, calculated on the basis of the business income reported to the tax authority from the date of the instant accident to July 26, 2017, which is 65 years of age from the date of the end of operation of the instant accident.

(e)the residual disability and the loss rate of operational capacity;

It is reasonable to view that Plaintiff 1 lost 100% of the ability to work due to falling under Section 3-D-(3) of Mabrid 2, brain, and sea water damage as the state of Mabrid 3 and below.

In light of the above facts, the defendant argued that the plaintiff 1 had a scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic sp.

(f) Living cost deduction;

The living cost of Plaintiff 1 shall be deducted from income from March 24, 2013 to July 26, 2013, the date following the end of the operation of Plaintiff 1’s expectation.

[Reasons for Recognition: Apparent facts, empirical rules, Gap evidence 11-2 and 3; the statements of this Court; the results of fact inquiries to the head of the Geumcheon District Tax Office of this Court; the results of this Court's entrustment of physical examinations to the head of the Godong-dong Hospital of this Court; the purport of the whole pleadings]

2) Calculation: 1,216,970,870 Won, such as in the separate sheet of damages calculation.

B. Limitation on liability

1) Limitation ratio: 80%;

2) Calculation: 973,576,696 won, such as in the above damages calculation table.

C. Judgment on the defendant's defense of set-off

The defendant asserted that the plaintiff 1 continued to receive medical treatment at the defendant hospital from June 24, 2009 after the procedure of this case, and that the claim of KRW 726,532,88 of medical expenses at the defendant hospital against the above plaintiff was offset against the amount equal to that of the above plaintiff's damage claim.

According to the evidence evidence No. 9, Plaintiff 1's medical treatment expenses from March 23, 2004 to June 24, 2009, which was the date of the instant medical treatment at Defendant Hospital, are 726,50,028 won (i.e., the patient's charge 62,60,155 won + non-benefit part 663,889,873 won) out of which 17,140 won was paid to the Plaintiff, and the remaining 726,532,888 won was not paid to the Plaintiff as the cause of the medical treatment claim, but the above medical treatment obligation owed by the doctor to the patient is merely a duty of due care of a good manager and thus, it cannot be viewed that the above physician's physical function cannot be recovered from the patient's disease or that the patient's physical function cannot be recovered from the patient's injury after the medical treatment claim was made more than 97,000 won.

D. The plaintiffs' consolation money

1) Reasons for taking account of Plaintiff 1’s age, family relation, property, and level of education, the circumstances and results of the instant medical accident, the degree and degree of subsequent disability resulting therefrom, and other various circumstances shown in the pleadings of this case.

(ii) the amount determined;

A) Plaintiff 1: 30,000,000 won

B) Plaintiff 2: gold 20,000,000 won

C) Plaintiff 3: 10,000,000 won

D) Plaintiff 4: 10,000,000 won

E) Plaintiff 5: 10,000,000 won

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to claim against the plaintiff 1 about 1,00,000 won as consolation money, 200,000, 3, 4, and 5 as consolation money, 10,000,000 won as well as 10,000,000 won as consolation money from March 23, 2004, which was the date of the accident of this case, to dispute about the existence and scope of the defendant's duty of performance from March 23, 2004 until November 5, 2009, 5% per annum under the Civil Act, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., from the following day to the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Jae-han (Presiding Judge)