1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. In the absence of dispute, Nonparty D (hereinafter “the deceased”) was employed by the Defendant and operated a commercial taxi. Around 01:00 on August 30, 2018, when parking the said taxi at the Kimpo-si E apartment parking lot of Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, there was an accident in which the said taxi was moving back again in the future and then there was a collision between the left-hand part of the vehicle parked in the front part of the left-hand side of the said taxi (hereinafter “instant accident”), and the Deceased suffered injury, such as a multi-freshing, which intrudes the body of the said vehicle, and died of the closed part accompanied by the heart book around September 15, 2018 while receiving medical treatment, the Plaintiffs are children of the deceased, and there is no dispute between the parties concerned.

2. The summary of the party's assertion is the cause of the claim in this case. The defendant, in violation of his duty of care to safely park the deceased on the garage so that he can work in shift, and in violation of his duty of care to prevent any overwork, caused the deceased to die due to the accident in this case. As such, the defendant asserts that he is liable to pay consolation money to the plaintiffs for damages caused by tort or breach of duty of safety care under the employment contract. The defendant is not liable to pay consolation money amounting to 40 million won (=the consolation money amounting to 38 million won in inheritance of the deceased's portion of consolation money). The defendant did not have any tort or default, and it is proved that the deceased's parking completed and opened a door while the deceased did not set up a parking, and that the accident in this case occurred due to the vehicle's moving-in by an accelerator X-ray.

3. The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone is insufficient to recognize that the accident of this case occurred due to the defendant's tort or default, and there is no other evidence to support this, and the plaintiffs' claim is without merit without examining the scope of consolation money.

A10 No. 10.