1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff and the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the assertion emphasized or added by the Defendants in this court is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition as set forth below, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Defendants related to the developments of the instant accident asserted to the effect that “D, while driving the instant Otoba in the instant case, was able to see the risk of the instant accident and caused the instant accident by themselves. The Defendants asserted that C’s instant Otoba cannot recognize a proximate causal relationship between driving and D’s injury.”

Some descriptions of Gap evidence 14-18, 21, and Eul evidence 20 are insufficient to reverse the recognition as seen earlier, and there is no other counter-proof.

Therefore, this part of the defendants' assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendants related to the violation of the Defendants’ management and supervision duty argues that “C has failed to provide Otobba driving method from D, has purchased E to E to E to E to purchase the instant Obaba, and the Defendants stored it in an apartment house with a distance of not less than 100 meters from the Defendants’ house. The Defendants did not know the fact that C was preparing and operating Obaba prior to the instant accident, and thus, cannot be said to have neglected the duty to protect and supervise the minor C with a responsible capacity.”

The defendants argued the same purport in the first instance court. The defendants' findings of fact and judgment in the first instance court (as to the first instance court's 7th 13 to 9th 221) are justifiable in light of the fact finding and judgment in the first instance court's 14th 17, 21 through 28, and 30 (including all the numbers), and there were no errors as alleged above.

The defendants' assertion in this part is without merit.

C. The Defendants related to D’s labor disability ratio can be recognized as 100% of the labor disability ratio since the date of the instant accident, which was about eight years after the date of the instant accident.