Since it is the same as the statement in the claim, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The plaintiffs 1) Defendant F, while driving at a speed of about 72.8 to 78km a road with a restricted speed of 60km each hour, caused the death of the deceased by significantly neglecting his/her duty of front-time care and shocking the deceased to the front-hander, and thus, the Defendants jointly and severally liable for the damages of the deceased and their inheritors. 2) In light of the fact that the Defendants’ bicycle falls under the vehicle of the Road Traffic Act, the front-hander of the central line, the passage of the road crossing was restricted at the time of the traffic accident, and the circumstances of the traffic accident, etc., it cannot be deemed that Defendant F has a duty of care to take measures to prevent the occurrence of the accident by predicting that the deceased’s entry to the crosswalk by getting on the bicycle or going on the crosswalk in violation of the pedestrian signal.

According to Eul evidence No. 6 (Report on Automobile Accident Engineering Analysis), even if Defendant F proceeds at a speed of 60 km per hour without speed, Defendant F could not avoid the instant accident, and thus, Defendant F cannot be deemed to have been negligent.

Therefore, the instant accident was entirely caused by the deceased’s negligence, and the statement on the analysis report of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation, which is the main evidence of the relevant criminal case, cannot be recognized as Defendant F’s negligence.

B. The signals on the crosswalk 1 sent the signal for the suspension of pedestrians and the progress of the vehicle

Even on the road, there is always a possibility that people or obstacles may appear on the road, and pedestrians who cross the road without permission by disregarding traffic signals in the same place as children protection zones.