1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiffs and Defendant B are dismissed.

2. The appeal cost arises between the plaintiffs and the defendant B.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for correction of the judgment of the first instance under Paragraph (2) below, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this case as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. The main part of the judgment of the court of first instance ① The Plaintiff’s “Plaintiff” in the part of the 2nd page 9 through 6th page 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be considered as “the network A”.

(2) The following sentences shall be added to the third five pages of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the third page 6 [founded grounds for recognition] shall be added to the "written evidence No. 18".

[A] On July 11, 2017, “A died, and the first-class heir has eight Plaintiffs, who are children, and their respective inheritance shares are 1/8, respectively.” ③ Plaintiffs withdraw medical treatment costs and future nursing expenses claims in the future. As such, the part of “ass. 9 through 6 of the first-class judgment,” is deleted.

(4) Parts VI through VII of the judgment of the first instance shall be advanced as follows.

Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from November 15, 2014, which is the date of the first instance judgment where it is deemed reasonable for the Defendants to dispute the existence or scope of the obligation to pay damages to the Plaintiffs who jointly taken over the network A due to damages for the instant accidents (i.e., KRW 5,000,000 ± 8) and from November 15, 2014, which is an illegal act. The Defendants are obliged to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act until January 20, 2017, and from the following day to the date of full payment. The Plaintiffs’ claims against the Defendants are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and each of the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit.

3. The conclusion of the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the appeal by the Plaintiffs and Defendant B is without merit.