1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are written or added as follows, and except for the addition of the following "2. Additional Determination" as to the allegations emphasized or added by the plaintiffs in this court, the following grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance are the same, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the judgment of the court of first instance, "Plaintiff D" shall be "Co-Plaintiff D", and "Plaintiff C" shall be "Co-Plaintiff C of the court of first instance".

The "attached facts" in the fourth two cases of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be changed to "the facts of prosecution" in the judgment of the court of first instance. The 7th one of the 7th cases of the judgment of the court of first instance " is currently pending in the appellate court as the Seoul High Court 2017Na201235 at the present time," and "the plaintiff A, Eul, and Eul, the plaintiff E, F, H, H, andJ shall be deemed to have appealed in the judgment of dismissal, and the Seoul High Court 2017Na2021235 decided January 10, 2018, but it shall be deemed that "the psychological condition" in the 8th six cases of the judgment of first instance shall be added to "the psychological condition" and "the 138th cases of the judgment of first instance shall be added."

2. Additional determination

A. As to the determination of the amount of consolation money, each of the consolation money of this case recognized in the first instance court in the claim of the plaintiffs, (1) caused property damage to the plaintiff, his parents, and the deceased T due to the tort of this case, but it is difficult to prove it; (2) The deceased R, the mother of the plaintiff A, actively participated in the release movement of his father, but the consolation money of the same amount as the husband Q, the husband, was recognized; (3) since T, the deceased, the Republic of Korea and Japan, and the plaintiff's life-saving activities of the plaintiff A, it should be recognized at least that amount of consolation money of the same amount as the plaintiff L should be recognized; and (3) Supreme Court Decision 2014Da207931 Decided March 24, 2016, which is the past history of this case, which is similar to this case, has an inequal equality between the plaintiffs.