A. The Plaintiff is the victim of the injury caused by a traffic accident as seen below. Defendant B is a person who operates a skin with the trade name “F” located in Pyeongtaek-si, Gyeonggi-do; Defendant C is a child of the above son as a child of the above son; Defendant D is an employee employed in the above son’s house, and Defendant D is a perpetrator who causes a traffic accident as seen below.

B. At around 22:50 on December 5, 2014, Defendant D: (a) driven a G-wheeled automobile for the purpose of delivering it; (b) driven a G-wheeled automobile; (c) proceeded at a speed of about 70 to 80 km from the off of the B-si in Gyeonggi-do, at a speed of about the speed of about 70-80 km from the off of the B-si terminal to the west-dong, in one way; (d) obstructed the Plaintiff and Nonparty J, who was crossing the road to the right side on the left side from the front bank without permission, in violation of the duty of the Jeonju-si; and (e) thereby, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the two-way aggregate and the upper part of the upper part of the two-way aggregate that require medical treatment for approximately 12 weeks.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

Defendant D received a summary order of KRW 5 million on March 30, 2015 with respect to the instant accident.

(C) No. 2015 high-level housing site 2015 high-level housing site 20145). 【Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents,” 【Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents,’s Grounds for Recognition

2. Occurrence of and limitation on liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts of recognition, unless there are special circumstances, Defendant D is the perpetrator who caused the instant traffic accident, and Defendant B is the employer of the above D, Defendant B and D are jointly and severally liable for damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant C is an employer who actually employs the above D while operating the above D's house, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

B. However, in full view of the basic facts and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff must be examined.