2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.

A. The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance policy with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “AV 1”), E vehicles (hereinafter “AV 2”), and F vehicles (hereinafter “AV 3”), respectively.

B. 1) On November 15, 2013, Plaintiff A is the G rocketing taxi owned by Plaintiff A (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”) around 01:26.

(B) while operating the vehicle, the vehicle was parked in the signal atmosphere from the academic distance of the forest in Gyeyang-dong, Incheon, Gyeyang-gu, Incheon, by one of the sea-going vehicles (hereinafter referred to as “first accident”).

). 2) 원고 A 차량은 제1사고로 인하여 우측 앞, 뒤 도어 및 좌측 뒤 도어 판금, 사이드스텝패널 판금, 뒷 범퍼 교환, 백 패널 교환, 우측 앞, 뒤 펜더 판금, 좌측 뒤 펜더 교환, 트렁크바닥 패널 교환 등 수리비 7,292,595원 등의 손해를 입었다.

C. (1) On December 16, 2013, Plaintiff B (hereinafter “Plaintiff B”) is a HB-house owned by oneself around 06:50 on December 16, 2013.

) A driver of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as “Class 2 accident”) was inferred by 2 Lives while driving a new-dong apartment in front of the new-dong apartment in Gangdong-gu (hereinafter referred to as “Seoul”).

(2) The Plaintiff B suffered losses, due to the second accident, such as repair costs of KRW 2,01,399, such as the back spread, the right-hand penter exchange, and the right-hand penter trade, etc.

1) On June 2, 2012, Plaintiff C is a passenger car owned by Plaintiff C (hereinafter “Plaintiff C”) around 15:50.

) While driving a motor vehicle and driving a motor vehicle into the road near the area of the Sil-si, the Sil-si, the Sil-si, the Sil-si (hereinafter referred to as the “third-party accident”).

(2) The Plaintiff C has suffered damages, such as repair costs of KRW 3,724,680, such as the replacement of back pans, due to the third accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion of this case led to a decline in the value of the plaintiff's vehicle's exchange, which falls under ordinary damages or special circumstances.