1. The plaintiffs' motion for additional co-litigants is dismissed.

2. All of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant.

1. As to the addition of the conjunctive co-litigants, the Plaintiffs sought the same amount of damages as the conjunctive co-litigants by adding D to the same preliminary defendant on August 29, 2017, but each claim against the Defendant and D does not appear to be legally incompatible, and thus, it is not legally allowed to add D as the preliminary co-litigants.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' preliminary co-litigants are dismissed, and only the claims against the defendant are judged.

2. Recognizing facts D(E) is operating a restaurant with the trade name “G” from “G” in the name of the Defendant, who is the subject of whom, as the Defendant, (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).

H (I) From February 2016, 2016, in the instant restaurant, served as a delivery service. At around 22:40 on April 16, 2016, H (I) operated the area adjacent to the intersection of Pakistan, such as Pakistan and Eup, to the intersection of an intersection, and was dissurted into the intersection, and died on the street, etc. on the right side of the road.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiffs are the parents of H, and the Plaintiff received 69,257,500 won in total from the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service in relation to the instant accident at around July 2016.

The plaintiffs filed a complaint against D, who is the actual operator of the restaurant in this case, on the charge of occupational negligence, but the prosecutor belonging to the Goyang District Prosecutors' Office at the Goyang District Prosecutors' Office was not guilty of D on June 22, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-6 evidence, Eul 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

3. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is that the defendant employed the minor deceased as the business proprietor of the restaurant in this case without the consent of the plaintiffs, who had no record of driving, and did not provide a safe appearance while carrying out delivery services to the deceased, who did not have a record of driving, at an in-depth stage. As such, the defendant provided a defective urbane.