1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, ..

1. The following facts, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, are apparent in the records or significant in this court:

The Plaintiffs, as the Gwangju District Court 2010Kadan10981, “Defendant D driven a F car at around 19:59 on October 24, 2009, and turn to the left from the jurisdiction of the Gwangju Regional Police Agency, at the seat of the Gwangju Regional Police Agency, to the intersection with the Hsanbu in front of the G in the Gwangju Mine-gu, and brought a lawsuit against the Defendants (hereinafter the Defendants) by asserting that: (a) Plaintiff C’s non-registration of 124CC driving, X-sibObs, caused Plaintiff C to suffer injury, such as a 16th parallel 16th parallel eropis of the Jeonchi, the eropis of the eropis, the eropis of the eropis; (b) Defendant Samsung Fire, the insurer of Defendant D and the above C were jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff and its parents, and the Plaintiff A and B, their parents.

The court of first instance dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that “the instant accident was caused by the unilateral negligence of Plaintiff C who entered the intersection by making a stop signal while driving a motorcycle without a motorcycle’s driver’s license, and even if Defendant D partly invadedd the central line near the stop line in the course of entering the intersection, such negligence cannot be deemed to have caused the instant accident.”

In response to this, the Plaintiffs appealed by the Gwangju District Court Decision 2009Na6987, but the appellate court rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiffs’ appeal on June 21, 2013 (hereinafter “the subject judgment for review”), and the Plaintiffs appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2013Da54697, but the subject judgment for review became final and conclusive upon receiving a judgment dismissing the appeal on September 26, 2013.

2. Grounds for retrial and determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 C did not violate the suspension signal, and even if the Plaintiff violated the signal, Defendant D’s central line.