1. Defendant D’s KRW 1,500,000 for Plaintiff A and 5% per annum from July 9, 2014 to March 31, 2015, respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff B and C are the parents of the plaintiff A.

Defendant Han Light Transport Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Han Light Transport”) is a company established for the purpose of automobile transport, and Defendant D is a driver employed by Defendant Han Light Transport and driving a business taxi.

B. At around 05:30 on February 1, 2014, Defendant D driven a E-ro taxi owned by Defendant Korea Light Transport (hereinafter “Defendant taxi”) and driven a three-lane road in front of the Fast G distance in the north-gu, North Korea at Port at Port along two-lanes.

C. Plaintiff A driving a HK5 vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and proceeding in the same direction as Defendant taxi on the right side of the instant road, which is an exclusive lane for the right side of the right side, along the three-lanes of the instant road that is an exclusive lane for the right side, and left the Defendant taxi without a right side through the intersection.

In the process, it conflicts with the signal pole, delivery, etc. on the right side of the plaintiff's vehicle.

Defendant D followed the Plaintiff’s vehicle by sending a stop signal, such as sounding a horn and raising a warning.

E. Plaintiff A left a bicycle before the north-gu I at the port of port and escaped without stopping the bicycle and stopping the J, which was driven along the right side of the above road, without taking necessary measures.

F. At around 05:33 on the same day, Defendant D reported the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the police station as an escape vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] The descriptions and images of Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 7, Eul evidence 1 to 11, Eul evidence 3 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is that the defendant D was able to drive the plaintiff's vehicle in a warning and upward, and the plaintiff D was unable to drive the plaintiff's vehicle normally, making it difficult to drive the plaintiff's vehicle in a normal manner, and caused a collision between the J which was riding a bicycle and paid KRW 2 million with the agreement, and thus, the defendant D has a duty to compensate the plaintiff A for the above damage.