1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 10, 201, at least 05:40% of the blood alcohol concentration, the Defendant driven a D Nescoo-coo (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) with D Nscoo-coo (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and brought to the left the intersection in front of the Transport Center located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Songpa-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant intersection”) from the boundary of the mountain village to the boundary of the flow distance, the Defendant shocked Fscoo-coo of E driving, which turned to the above intersection from the boundary of the mountain village to the boundary of the flow distance.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

E died at around 06:30 on the day of the accident due to the shock shock caused by the accident in this case.

C. The Plaintiffs are parents of the network E (hereinafter “the deceased”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, 13 to 16 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is the driver of the defendant vehicle, who is responsible for all damages suffered by the deceased and the plaintiffs due to the accident in this case.

B. The defendant's assertion 1) The defendant asserted that at the time of the accident of this case, the defendant had no negligence since he had the right turn normally and entered the intersection of this case, and the accident of this case occurred due to the whole negligence of the deceased who had entered the intersection of this case by driving a scooter in violation of the suspension signal, and thus, the defendant should be exempted from liability (as to this, the plaintiff entered the intersection of this case before the time of the accident of this case re-transfer to a stop signal, and the family deceased violated the signal of this case.

The defendant also asserts that there was a negligence that caused the accident of this case by neglecting the duty of booming upon entering the intersection of this case due to the state of host.

(ii) 2.