1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant 100,750,531 won and 97,750.750

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the facts, limitation of liability, and the scope of compensation for damages are as follows. Thus, this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the

The second 3th eth 2th eth 2th eth eth 2th eth eth eth eth 4,5,12 through 16th eth e.g.

Part 3, "B 2-11-18" in Part 8 shall be changed to "B 11-18-2".

The following shall be added to the fifth line following that in paragraph 4:

(d) Mutual Aid 1) Of the medical expenses 2,014,740 won directly paid by the Defendant, the part on the deceased’s negligence 2) out of the 1,130,000 won for the repair of the Defendant’s vehicle paid by the Defendant, the part on the deceased’s negligence 6th, “E.” and the part on the 11th, “E.” in “F.” respectively.

The "attached Form No. 6 Calculation Table of Damages" shall be changed to the "attached Form No. 6 of the Decision".

2. If so, the Defendant is obligated to pay to Plaintiff A 10,750,531 won, Plaintiff B 97,750,531 won, Plaintiff C 5,000 won, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from July 6, 2014 to February 15, 2016, which is the date of the ruling of the court of the first instance, where it is deemed reasonable to dispute the existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligation to perform the instant case after the date of the instant accident, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims should be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims should be dismissed.

However, the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in some different conclusions, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by accepting part of the appeal by the plaintiff A and B and the defendant, respectively, and by modifying it as above.