2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. At around 06:00 on June 6, 2013, Non-Party F driven the second line of the Sinscopic road in front of the Sincopic Sincopic Sincopic Sincopic Sincopic Sincopic Sincopic Sincopic Sincopic Sincopic Sincopic Guncopic Sincopic Sincopic (hereinafter “Defendant”) with Gancopic 2-lanescopic Sincopic Sincopic Sincopic Guncopic Sincopic Guncopic Sincopic Guncopic Sincopic Guncopic Sincopic Sincopic Sincopic Guncopic Guncopic Gucopic Guncopic Sincopic Guncopic Gucopic Gucopic Guncopic Gucopic 0.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.

The plaintiffs are the spouses and children of the deceased F (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), who are the inheritors of the deceased, and the defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract for the above column.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 5-1 to 5-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted that, considering the fact that the body of the driver of the two-wheeled vehicle protruding out outside the body due to its operational characteristics, the body of the deceased is difficult to eliminate the probability of having contacted the defendant's vehicle, and the accident in this case occurred due to the defendant's breach of duty of care, such as overwork or negligence of the driver of the vehicle in front, and therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the damage caused by the accident in this case.

B. The defendant's assertion is that the defendant's vehicle was in normal driving according to the one-lane of the accident site, and the deceased's ozone.