1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. At around 22:03 on April 6, 2016, D, while driving a small-sized off-to-be E and driving a e-mail, in violation of the signal from the e-mail distance to the scopic parallel of G driving who turn left at the upper right park at the top of the e-road heading side of the e-mail, and driving in line with the signal from the e-mail distance to the e-mail. D died due to cerebral transfusion, etc.

(hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. Plaintiff A is the denial of D, and Plaintiff B and C are children of D.

C. The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the defendant vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy Facts, Gap 1, 2, 4 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence (including partial numbers), Gap 5 video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion D was negligent in driving the Ortoba in violation of the signal at the time of the instant accident, G, the driver of the Defendant vehicle, driven the vehicle without operating the Orabab while driving the vehicle while driving the vehicle, the driver of the vehicle has a duty of care to stop down the said vehicle even if it was found that there was no vehicle coming from the walk prior to the left at the intersection, and where there was no vehicle going to the right-hand at the intersection, the vehicle still going to the intersection, or where there was a change of signal from the harsh part, and the vehicle has to be driven without safely leaving the intersection by stopping the above vehicle and leaving the right-hand left-hand turn.

G’s negligence was caused by the instant accident, and G’s negligence should be deemed to exceed 30%. As such, the Defendant, the insurer, is D and his heir, as the instant accident.