1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff A and Defendant D had been enrolled in the first grade of H high school as of 2015, and Plaintiff B and Plaintiff C’s parents of Plaintiff A, Defendant E and Defendant G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) submitted to the Defendant as the insured in relation to the insurance contract between Defendant E and the Plaintiff’s parents of Defendant D, Defendant Eul’s parents, and Defendant G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) as an insurance policy with Defendant A’s insured status, not Defendant D, but as an insurance policy with Defendant E’s another child of Defendant E, and it cannot be deemed as evidence of the fact of concluding the insurance contract with Defendant D as the insured. However, there is no particular dispute between the parties as to the above fact of recognition.

(hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) is a company which has concluded the instant insurance contract.

B. On September 15, 2015, Plaintiff A and Defendant D had a team divided into a friendly club, including I, who is a student of the same school at the fourth p.m. on September 15, 2015, and a field adjacent to H High School, and the Plaintiff A and Defendant D belonged to a different team.

C. Under the situation where the Plaintiff’s official art in the games was cut back to the vicinity of the Plaintiff’s team personal music (alleys, e.g., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e.,

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

The Plaintiff sustained injury by loss of 99% of the friendly vision power due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, part of witness I's testimony, the result of the commission of physical appraisal to the L Hospital Head of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. 원고들의 주장 이 사건 사고는 당시 원고 A이 축구공에 충분히 접근한 상황임에도 피고 D이 원고 A의 안전을 고려하지 않은 채 축구공을 힘껏 차서 발생한 것으로, 피고 D로서는 공의 위치, 상대방과의 거리, 상대방의 자세 등을 고려하여 축구공을 찼을 때 상대방이...