beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. D, while under the influence of alcohol on May 17, 2014, at around 05:07, while driving a e-car with a blood alcohol content of 0.157%, and driving the e-car on the right side of 200 meters from the modern New Port located in the Seongbuk-dong of Gangseo-gu, Busan, at the right side of 200 meters from the e-section 4-lane. However, the e-vehicle back of the F-driving which was parked on the four-lane, with the right side of the vehicle, turned back the e-ray back of the e-car’s G Twit, which was parked on the four-lane, after driving the said vehicle, and turned the e-ray into the left side, and re-e-off the above e-day part with the driver’s seat.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). D A died due to the said accident.
(hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). (b)
Plaintiff
A is the deceased's spouse, and the plaintiff B and C are the deceased's children.
The defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement for the above leper.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1-1 to 9, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiffs asserted that since the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence that illegally parked the Tracler on the four-lanes where F had frequent traffic, the deceased and the plaintiffs are liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the deceased.
In full view of the above evidence and evidence No. 2, it appears that there was no hindrance to the Deceased in driving the vehicle in light of the time of the accident and road conditions, etc., and the Deceased’s failure to know it under the influence of alcohol. As the Deceased’s driving in a four-lane direction, the accident in this case is caused by such abnormal operation of the Deceased, and there is no proximate causal relation with the illegal parking of the said Trr.
Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case against the defendant, which is premised on F's liability for damages, is the scope of damages.