2. B

3. C

Plaintiff 2 and 3 are minors, so the legal representative mother A

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Lee Dong-il, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

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

The grounds for appeal asserted by the Plaintiff are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and the fact-finding and decision by the court of first instance are justifiable even if each evidence submitted to the court is presented to the court in the first instance.

Therefore, this court's reasoning is as follows: (1) No. 4 of the first instance court's decision No. 9 "the fact that the accident in this case occurred." (4) No. 9 did not find any trace that there was any structural defect or functional obstacle to the defendant's vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the accident in this case. (6) It is difficult to view that the plaintiff has a duty of care to take safety measures because it is difficult to expect the F, a pedestrian, who is a pedestrian, to normally proceed on the road between the sidewalk and the roadway, to have up to the roadway. (3) The plaintiff argued that the location of the accident in this case is an intersection where traffic is not controlled, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and instead, it is identical to the reasons for the first instance court's decision except for adding "the road form is indicated as an intersection, not an intersection," and it is also cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and all appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Choi Ho-ho

Judges Lee fixed-type