1. The plaintiff E shall be dismissed.

2. The Defendant: (a) 700,000 won to Plaintiff A and its related thereto from September 8, 2012 to December 2014.

1. Whether a minor’s lawsuit is legitimate or not can conduct litigation only by the person with parental authority who is a legal representative (Article 55 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 911 of the Civil Act), and Article 911 of the Civil Act, stating that a person with parental authority over a plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case who files the lawsuit of this case with the legal representative of the plaintiff’s person with parental authority is not the person with parental authority over the plaintiff’

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition (1) around 01:10 on September 8, 2012, F driven a private taxi vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and changed the lane from the monthly malklight to the one-lane in the new west in the direction of old LIC in the middle of the two-lane, which led to the Plaintiff, who was on board the back seat of the Defendant vehicle, due to the shock of the central separation zone, caused the Plaintiff’s injury, such as the anti-monthly ruptures on the left side of the left-hand slot.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (2) Plaintiff B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A, Plaintiff D are the children of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to Defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages caused by the instant accident as a mutual aid business operator of defendant vehicle.

C. The limitation of liability: (a) the Plaintiff was negligent in failing to wear the safety labelling at the time of the instant accident; and (b) the Defendant’s negligence should be considered in calculating the amount of damages that the Defendant would compensate; (c) it is reasonable to deem that the ratio was 5% in light of all circumstances, such as the circumstances of the accident, etc.; and

3. The Defendant, on November 28, 2014, partially reduced the amount of the claim stated in the claim and the application for the correction of cause as of August 5, 2014, and voluntarily withdrawn the part.