1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' claim corresponding to the above revoked part shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 2, 2011, 05:15, E driving a 125cc Oba (H; hereinafter “the instant Obaba”), which is owned by the Defendant, led nine lanes in front of the oil station located in Busan, Busan, to the direction of the Jbagu, the speed of about 60 km at a speed of about 60 km in the speed of the city, depending on one of the five-lanes located in the direction of the Jba railroad station in Busan, and shocked A who crossed the said one-lane from the Central Obagsium to the speed of about 60 km.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

A died on July 8, 2013, when he continued to receive hospitalized treatment by suffering from cerebral cerebralopsis, etc. due to the instant accident.

C. At the time of the death of A, there was Plaintiff B and A as his bereaved family members.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The summary of the plaintiffs' assertion falls under the "the person who operates an automobile for his own sake" in the accident of this case as the owner of Oral Ba, and thus, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs, who are the users of E, E, and E, and their bereaved family members, pursuant to Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

3. Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act provides that "the person who operates an automobile for his own sake" refers to the person who can be deemed to be in the position of a responsible subject to the control of the operation of the automobile in question and the benefit of the operation of the automobile in question. In this case, the control of the operation is not limited to the actual control, but to the case where it can be deemed that there is an indirect control or a possibility of control.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da36382, Oct. 27, 1998). On September 5, 2010, the Defendant, the owner of the instant Orala, requested G to repair the instant accident, which was five months prior to the occurrence of the instant accident, and thereafter, sold brokerage to G after the repair was completed.