All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Intervenor, and the remainder are assessed against the Intervenor.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined that it is difficult to view the deceased as an operator with operating control over the Defendant’s vehicle and operating benefits, and that it is difficult to view that the deceased was in a position to prevent an accident as a driver solely on the ground that E was a non-licensed condition and a driver’s license for the deceased, and that the deceased constitutes “other person” under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and thus, the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, recognized that the deceased and the plaintiffs are liable for the damages

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding “other persons” under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, or by misapprehending the reasoning

2. On the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, granted the instant company an explicit or implied approval for driving without a license of E.

In light of the fact that it is difficult to deem that E was in the position of the registered insured in lieu of the instant company, the Defendant did not accept the Defendant’s assertion of exemption under the non-licensed exemption clause of the insurance

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of application of the non-licensed exemption provision.

3. On the ground of appeal No. 3, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the deceased who died of the accident in this case constitutes the acceptance insured and Article 8 (2) 1 of the insurance clause of this case is subject to the application of Article 8 (2) 1 of the insurance clause, and the defendant's obligation to pay insurance money

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s conclusion is justifiable, even though some inappropriate parts at the time of the reasoning of the lower court, which did not accept the Defendant’s allegation of exemption