1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 13,533,33, and Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) B, C, and D respectively.

This paper also examines the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 10, 2013, the network E (hereinafter “the network”) driven FOtob, without a driver’s license, on or around 12:40 on June 10, 2013, while driving a two-lane road adjacent to H oil station located in G at the time of racing along two-lanes from the front side of the racing. Nonparty I was driving a J 25 tons truck at the same place for the same time (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”). Nonparty I proceeded along the above Otoba along the same lane.

B. While the Deceased changed the vehicle line into one lane for overtaking a truck vehicle in transit from the front side of the Deceased, the Deceased died due to the brain training mail, etc. by facing the right side of the Defendant vehicle, going beyond the road, and going beyond the road.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On the other hand, Plaintiff A’s wife, Plaintiff B, C, and D are the deceased’s children, and the Defendant is a mutual aid project operator who wishes to compensate for damages caused by an accident that occurred during the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 and the purport of each video and pleading

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The parties' assertion 1) The plaintiffs have caused the accident of this case by competition between the negligence in violation of the I's designated lane and the negligence in the operation of the deceased, who is the driver of the defendant vehicle, and the accident of this case occurred. While the defendant claims that the deceased and the deceased are liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the deceased, the accident of this case occurred without the deceased's duty of care in the state of driver's license, and there is no proximate causal relation between the violation of the I's designated lane and the occurrence of the accident of this case, which is the driver of the defendant vehicle, and the following circumstances recognized by the above evidence, namely, according to Article 14 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 16 (1) [Attachment 9] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act and Article 16 (9) of the same Act.