2. Plaintiff 2

3. Plaintiffs 3

The administrative office of the Incheon Strengthening-gun Gun 163

Head of the Gun

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 40% is borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder 60% is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The plaintiffs asserted that, around 00 on September 28, 2007: around 00, the plaintiff 1 loaded bicycles on the bicycle lanes located along the coast of the Incheon Reinforcement-gun, Incheon, the defendant constructed and managed, and that the plaintiff 1 suffered bodily injury, such as the omission of, or damage to, any concrete structure installed to control the entry of vehicles on the bicycle road, which is caused by a damaged sculpture.

The defendant asserts that the circumstances of the accident cannot be recognized as alleged by the plaintiffs.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 28, 2007, Plaintiff 1, who is the children of Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 3, was on the bicycle lane located at the Incheon Reinforcement-gun A (hereinafter referred to as “the bicycle lane of this case”) located at the Incheon Reinforcement-gun A, where the Defendant was built and managed together with Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 3, around 00.

B. During that period, Plaintiff 1 suffered bodily injury (hereinafter referred to as the "accident in this case"), such as the fluoral value in the right side of the road on which he was passing (the opposite side of the roadway), the fluoral value in the right side, the fluoral value in the right side, the fluoral value in the right side, the fluoral value in the right side, the fluoral value in the right side, the fluoral value in the face, the fluoral value in the face, and the loss in the fluoral part (the opposite side of the roadway).

C. In the vicinity of Plaintiff 1, a damaged sculpture of concrete structures to prevent the entry, etc. into the bicycle lane was fixed on the roadside, and there was no other object that may result from the above Plaintiff’s disease.

D. In addition, the place that Plaintiff 1 exceeded at night was not installed and it was difficult to find the damaged sculptures unless it is seen as close as the street, etc. is located.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2 through 5 evidence, witness ○○○, leap○○, Kim○, the purport of the entire pleadings

3. Grounds for and limitations on liability;

A. Grounds for liability

As seen earlier, Plaintiff 1 suffered significant injury as seen in Section 2.b. of this case due to the instant accident. Furthermore, in light of the degree of the injury, Plaintiff 1 was merely considered to have been affected by Plaintiff 1’s driver, rather than to have reached the instant accident with the intent of Plaintiff 1’s driver, and the location of the instant accident did not have any possibility of exceeding Plaintiff 1 suffering from the injury other than the above damage lighting. The head of ○○○, ○○○, and ○○○○○○○○○, and ○○○○○○○○, which appeared as a witness in this court, deemed that Plaintiff 1 was used in the vicinity of the above damaged lighting and was damaged. Furthermore, Plaintiff 1’s witness was able to find that Plaintiff 1 was imprised with the surrounding mobile phone immediately after Plaintiff 1’s accident, and it appears to have been damaged by the witness of this case in light of the circumstances that Plaintiff 1 was directly damaged by the witness of this case.

The defendant, as a bicycle lane, who is the construction and management authority of the road of this case, is obligated to maintain and manage the condition of the road of this case so that bicycles can be operated smoothly at night.

Nevertheless, since the plaintiff 1 suffered injury due to the defendant's neglect of management, the defendant is ultimately liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident in this case.

B. Limitation on liability

On the other hand, it is reasonable to view the defendant's liability ratio as 60% in consideration of all the circumstances shown in this case's pleading, including the fact that the accident in this case occurred even though the plaintiff 1 was obligated to take care more than a day to live around and operate a bicycle at night.

4. Scope of liability for damages (timation less than cost for the convenience of calculation - detailed calculation formula shall be referred to in the attached Form);

(a) Actual income: 47, 953, 224 won;

- Date of birth: February 8, 1992

-average import: 1, 332,034 won (calculated on the basis of the unit price of ordinary wage);

- Operating Period: 474 months

- Labor disability loss rate: 15% (the result of physical appraisal of this Court)

(b) Wrons and future medical treatment expenses;

- Walking medical expenses: 820, 837 won (Evidence A 6)

- Future treatment costs: Macrymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymn (the result of physical appraisal of this Court. No evidence exists to determine the fact that he/she has undergone the Macrymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymymn, when the date of conclusion of argument, after the date of conclusion of argument, shall be deemed to have been paid on November 24, 2008

· Written 19,384,520 Won 18,388,155 won in total for crypt surgery and sexual surgery

· 3,525,102

(c) Amount after offsetting negligence;

70, 687, 318 won x 0.6 = 42, 412, 390 won

(d) Condolence money;

Plaintiff 1: 3 million won

Plaintiff 2, Plaintiff 3: One million won each;

(e) Total amount;

Plaintiff 1: 45, 412, 390

Plaintiff 2, Plaintiff 3: One million won each;

F. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to Plaintiff 1 1 1 , 412, 390, 2, and 3 1,000, 000 won each of them, and 20% interest per annum under the Civil Act from September 28, 2007, which is the date of the instant accident, to November 25, 2008, the date of the instant judgment, and damages for delay calculated from September 28, 2007 to the date of full payment.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit.