1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The party status Plaintiff A is the owner of C Two-wheeled Motor Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and Plaintiff B is the Plaintiff’s son, who used the Plaintiff’s son, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with E operating Drocketing motor vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On July 25, 2015, E, when driving a Defendant vehicle on the backway located in F of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, Seoul on July 25, 2015, there was an accident that contacts the Plaintiff Ortoba (hereinafter “instant accident”).

Plaintiff

Obama had been covered by the vehicle cover at the time of the instant accident, and was not used at the time of contact.

C. The Defendant filed a complaint against the Plaintiff B with the Plaintiff’s attempted fraud, filed a complaint against the Plaintiff B with the charge of attempted fraud on the ground that the Plaintiff B filed a claim for repair and rental expenses while the Plaintiff incurred losses, such as the Plaintiff’s Matobane’s shoulder straws, etc. due to the instant accident. The Defendant filed a complaint against the Plaintiff B with the charge of attempted fraud on the ground that the Plaintiff B filed a false insurance payment

Plaintiff

B was subject to a disposition on December 17, 2015 as follows.

At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s assertion by the complainant seems to be reasonable in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff did not use the Plaintiff Oralb at the time of the instant accident; (b) there was no trace caused by the accident on the Defendant’s vehicle; and (c) the Plaintiff Oralb, in addition to the shoulder part, there were many damaged parts due to Madbro, in addition to the shoulder part; (d) the Plaintiff’s Madbbbox, which is at least 30 cent of the cover of the Plaintiff Oralba, is difficult to deem that the Madbro and the Plaintiff’s Madbbide caused by the same shock; and (e) the

However, it is true that the plaintiff B completely denies, and that the defendant's vehicle contacted the plaintiff's Otoba, it is a non-prosecution disposition.