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. On July 2, 2015, G driving a H taxi (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) around 00:01, while passing from the J High School to the K building, the private distance on which the instant vehicle is installed at the front of the Busan International Airport in Busan.
Plaintiff
A was stopped on the right side of the left side of the instant vehicle in the direction of the instant vehicle, and only the said vehicle stopped on the right side of the instant vehicle, while leaving the said vehicle, the balance was lost, the body was shaken, and the vehicle was faced with the front side of the instant vehicle, and thereby, A suffered an injury to blood transfusion, etc. due to such injury.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident.” The accident scene map of the instant accident is as shown in the attached Form b.
G appealed to the above judgment on the charge of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (amended by the Busan District Court Decision 2015No8086 Decided September 30, 2016), that “A was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for six months due to the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (amended by the Busan District Court Decision 2016No3997 Decided April 20, 2017), while the appeal was dismissed (the Busan District Court Decision 2016No3997 Decided April 20, 201), that “I did not immediately stop the vehicle and take necessary measures, such as providing relief to the victim, even though I was receiving the back door of the instant vehicle’s upper part of the right side of the instant vehicle, which started from the time of the instant accident, and suffered serious injury, such as cutting down the two frameworks, etc.” (the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.
C. Plaintiff B, C, and E are the parents of Plaintiff A, Plaintiff D, and Plaintiff A’s children, and the Defendant is the mutual aid business operator for the instant vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7-12, and 7-23, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. (1) The Plaintiffs’ assertion G was found to have had the intent to board the instant vehicle and intended to open and board the said vehicle.
That is, G, while looking at the above plaintiff's movement, the above plaintiff is the above plaintiff's vehicle.