beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 20, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) around 15:00, on August 20, 2016, on the part of the Plaintiff, on the part of the Defendant’s her children (the 6 years of age, South Korea) was faced with an accident where the Defendant’s her children (the 6 years of age, South Korea) was her own barked and her barked in order to avoid the Plaintiff’s her own direction, and went beyond her body (hereinafter “instant accident”).
B. In the vicinity of the instant accident place, the surface of the land was installed to view the flow of Araboms from the place where the instant accident occurred, and the surface of the land is packaged into a lucin pattern, and lighting is installed on the side of Araboms, and an information board for Abomers is also installed.
In the vicinity of the accident site of this case, the bicycle lane of the red road and the sidewalk are installed as soon as possible in the vicinity of the accident site of this case, and the road surface display of the bicycle lane and the sidewalk are terminated (see the video of the attached Form). [The ground for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, the video of the evidence Nos. 2 through 3, Nos. 2 through 1 and 3 (including the number of numbers), witness D's testimony, the party's personal examination result of Defendant B, the purport of the entire arguments, and the purport of the whole arguments.
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① In spite of the fact that the Defendants’ children, as pedestrians, have the duty of care to walk on the roadside or in the area of the road on which the sidewalk and the roadway are not separated pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Road Traffic Act, they erred by leaving the point where the Plaintiff’s bicycle passes, and in addition, pedestrians should not immediately cross the vehicle in front or rear, pursuant to Article 10(4) of the Road Traffic Act, even though they are not immediately crossing the vehicle.
Therefore, the defendants are minors who are not capable of being responsible, and Article 755 of the Civil Act provides for the mistake of the defendants' children.