1. Each of the plaintiffs' claims is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in light of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as follows.

D On July 12, 2017, around 02:50 on an original city, 02:0, 02:50, franchis parked the Ewing Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”) without turning the taillights and sidelights on the three-lane side of the three-lane 3 lanes.

B. On the other hand, F was over the right side because it could not be known while operating Obama on the surface of Ebama village distance at the above temporary location, from the surface of Ebama to the surface of Ebama.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

F Around 06:00 on July 12, 2017, the F died of low-blood shock.

(hereinafter referred to as “F”) . D.

The plaintiffs are the parents of the deceased, and the defendant is the insurer who has concluded an insurance contract on the defendant's vehicle.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant’s vehicle was in a state of illegal parking at the time of the instant accident, and there exists a proximate causal relationship between the foregoing illegal parking and the instant accident. As such, the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, should compensate the Plaintiff for the damages (369,805,018, funeral expenses KRW 5 million, funeral expenses KRW 60 million, the deceased’s consolation money, and KRW 10 million, respectively) incurred by the Plaintiff and the Deceased (the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, from January 11, 2021 to April 10, 201, calculated as the urban daily wage of an ordinary person, from January 10, 201 to April 10, 2016).

B. Even if the Defendant’s vehicle was illegally parked, it is insufficient to acknowledge that there was a proximate causal relationship between the instant accident and the Defendant’s vehicle’s parking, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the various descriptions of evidence Nos. 5, 6, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 14 and the overall purport of oral pleadings, the location of the instant accident was straight line, and there is no particular obstacle on the front side.