1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff (the plaintiff and the selected party).

1. The following facts, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, are apparent in the records or significant in this court:

A. The Plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Plaintiff, etc.”) had the Gwangju District Court 2010Kadan10981, the Plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff, etc.”) filed a claim for damages against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and the designated parties, claiming for damages against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant D and the Defendant Samsung Samsung Fire, the Plaintiff, claiming for damages against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff and the aforementioned Defendant, jointly and severally, filed a claim against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff and the designated parties, claiming for damages against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and the Defendant Samsung Fire, the Plaintiff, claiming for damages against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and their parents, claiming for damages against the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”).

B. The court of first instance dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that “the instant accident was caused by the unilateral negligence of Appointers C who entered the intersection by using a stop signal without a motorcycle driver’s license, and even if Defendant D partly infringed on the median line near the stop line in the course of entering the intersection, it cannot be deemed that the negligence did not constitute the cause of the instant accident.”

C. The Plaintiff et al. appealed with the Gwangju District Court 2012Na17727. However, the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff et al.’s appeal on the same ground as the first instance judgment on June 21, 2013 (hereinafter “the judgment subject to review”) and thus, appealed by the Supreme Court 2013Da54697, but the judgment subject to review was dismissed on September 26, 2013.