Defendant E, at around 21:00 on August 16, 2013, driving the instant cargo while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.167% on the one-lane road in front of tin-si, night-ro, Myeong-ro, Plue-si, and was driving the instant cargo at a speed of 0.167%, Defendant E, who was the front part of the Plaintiff’s bicycle back, prior to the right edge of the road, was shocked into the front part of the said cargo, thereby causing injury to Plaintiff A.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). Meanwhile, Plaintiff B’s father and Plaintiff C are the mother of Plaintiff A.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 16, 17 (including additional numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the fact of recognition of the liability for damages, Defendant E neglected the duty of care at the time of the front-time drive while being unable to drive normally due to drinking, thereby causing injury to the Plaintiff due to the instant accident due to the negligence of operating the instant cargo, and Defendant D is the owner of the instant cargo, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants jointly and severally are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages due to the instant accident.

B. As to the Defendants’ assertion, Defendant D without permission asserts that Defendant D lost the operating control and operational profit of the said Defendant Company at the time of the instant accident, as it used the instant cargo vehicle for personal purposes to return his wife without any connection with the said Defendant Company’s business.

However, as seen earlier, Defendant D is the owner of the instant cargo, and Defendant E can recognize the fact that Defendant D operated the instant cargo vehicle while working as an inside director of Defendant D, even if so, Defendant E is an individual use of the instant cargo vehicle as alleged by Defendant D.