1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

(b).

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the defendant's "the defendant's "the defendant's" as "the plaintiff's "the plaintiff," and (b) the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, except for adding the judgment of paragraph (2) below, thereby citing it pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(2) The plaintiffs asserted that the court of first instance violated the principle of disposition by recognizing the future treatment costs of the defendant as a counterclaim, 25,372,70 won, nursing costs of the first instance court, 25,96, 320 won, nursing costs of the first instance court, and 131,935,156 won.

However, even if the court recognized the amount of damages as the basis of the claim exceeds the amount claimed by the plaintiff, the court cannot be deemed to have violated the principle of disposition by the party to the scope of damages unless the plaintiff ordered payment in excess of the amount claimed by the plaintiff by citing only the amount reduced according to

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da17710 delivered on October 11, 1994). However, the court of first instance recognized the future treatment costs of KRW 25,96,320, nursing costs of KRW 131,935,156, and accepted only the future treatment costs of KRW 23,396,68, nursing costs of KRW 118,741,640, which are the amount within the scope of the defendant's counterclaim claim amount by applying the ratio of 90% to that amount, and thus, the court of first instance cannot be said to have violated the principle of disposition. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is just, and all appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.