1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The defendant shall bear the total costs of the lawsuit that occurred after the appeal.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows, and the part concerning the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the "the scope of liability for damages" is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following portions:

3. Scope of liability for damages

A. In full view of all the circumstances revealed in the records and arguments of the case, such as the amount of consolation money, mental suffering suffered by the victims and their bereaved family members, discrimination and frigerants that had been received by the society and the government, which was committed by them for a long time under a false perception even thereafter, lack of economic difficulties, equity in similar cases, and statistical income data for calculating lost earnings at the time of the death of the deceased, and thus, it is impossible to calculate lost earnings for the deceased. In full view of all the circumstances indicated in the records and arguments of the case, such as the fact that the compensation for consolation money is delayed for a long time, the consolation money shall be KRW 80 million for the victims themselves, and for their spouses, KRW 40

B. Inheritance 1) In a case where a married head of the family who is not the head of the family dies without a lineal descendant before the enforcement of the current Civil Act, the wife’s inheritance was customary in Korea. (2) According to each of the statements in the evidence No. 46-1, No. 2, and No. 3 of the evidence No. 46, the deceased on August 10, 1959 (hereinafter “the deceased”), and the deceased on August 10, 1959. At that time, the deceased was the family member and his father, his father, LV, LW, and wife, and the deceased did not have a child under the5 of the deceased.

3) Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff, the wife of the Deceased, is deemed to have inherited the deceased’s property solely. C. The first day of the damages for delay, the Plaintiff claimed damages for delay from around 1952 when the Defendant’s tort was terminated.

2. With respect to a tort liability, there is no separate demand for performance, and there is no delay damages at the same time as the obligation is established.