1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On February 10, 2018, E, at around 15:10, 3 lanes (general national highways, 3.26 meters in width, and small sloping paths) of the Defendant’s vehicle (24t dump trucks, 8640m in length, 2490m in width, 3130m in height) were driven by the Defendant’s vehicle at a speed of about 27 km in speed from the F Hospital to the spotent.

B. At the time, net G was on the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle with the electric kickboard (1.2m, height 1.2m, 0.6m in width) and the side side (2m in width) above the three-lanes right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the overtaking was over 43m in speed, and the Defendant’s vehicle died due to multiple accidents, etc., being over the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

Plaintiff

A as a child of the deceased, solely inherited the deceased, and the Plaintiff B and C are the parents of the deceased.

The defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement for defendant dump vehicles.

In relation to the instant accident, E was charged with the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, but it was difficult for the Deceased to expect that the electric kick truck would be driven by the Defendant through the road, or that the kick truck would be driven by the Deceased’s electric kickboard during the course of driving in front of the accident. In addition, as long as there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant had influenced the kickboard of the Deceased’s operation, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant was negligent on the part of the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-3, Gap 8, Eul 1, Eul 6's contents and images (including paper numbers), inquiry results on the chief of police station of the Council and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. At the time of the accident, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle (1) is aware that the Plaintiff’s vehicle is driving on the side at the later side of the accident, and without taking any safety measures, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle is avoiding any ready-mixed vehicle driving on the second line.