1. The Defendants jointly pay KRW 27,892,823 to the Plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff is a person who actually owns and operates the B Sknova Tra (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff vehicle”) and enters the same-sex truck company; (b) the Defendant Line Development Co., Ltd. is the owner of C dump truck (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”); and (c) the Defendant East Fump truck is the insurer of the Defendant vehicle.

On July 21, 2014, at around 04:25, the Plaintiff: (a) linked the Plaintiff’s vehicle with D Tricker, proceeding in the direction of 5 parts on the roads of 3-lanes around the Sungwon-si, Sungwon-si, Sungdong Heavy Industries; (b) however, the Plaintiff attempted to find and avoid the parking of the Defendant’s vehicle on the front side of the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, but did not reach the lower part on the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle; and (c) did not shock the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The instant accident led to the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s breakdown, and partial damage was inflicted on the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

The instant accident place is where parking or stopping is not allowed, and it is a straight line with approximately 150 meters before the Plaintiff’s vehicle reaches the accident site.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 7, 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, since the accident of this case occurred due to the operation of the defendant vehicle, the defendants are liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the accident of this case.

The Defendants asserted that the instant accident was an accident that occurred solely due to the Plaintiff’s violation of the duty of front-time care, and that there was no causal link between the Defendant’s driver’s illegal parking and the instant accident.

However, in the absence of such illegal parking, Defendant vehicle drivers were parked in an area where parking was prohibited, and even if the Plaintiff was negligent in performing his duty of care at the front time, the instant accident would not have occurred. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is concerned.