1. Defendant B’s KRW 147,091,573 as well as 5% per annum from June 10, 2012 to December 23, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. At around 23:08, Jun. 10, 2012, Defendant B, while driving a 100cc Ma-dong E, which was not covered by mandatory insurance, and driving the FF road from the middle Cranch intersection to the middle Cranch basin, in violation of the signal, conflict with G-si, who was directly engaged in the left-hand turn-hand turn-off from the upper franch bank to the middle franch bank in the middle franch bank.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.

In the instant accident, the Plaintiff, who was on the rear tin, was suffering from injury, such as fladrosis, due to bladrosis and fladrosis away from the surface.

C. Defendant C and D are the parents of Defendant B.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4 (including virtual numbers), Eul 2, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the defendants are liable for damages

A. According to the above facts, Defendant B is liable for damages caused by the instant accident as a driver of Oral Ba. However, Defendant B seems to have known that Defendant B was driving Oral Ba in the state of license without permission, Defendant B was not aware of his failure to wear a safety cap while boarding the above Oral Ba, and Defendant B was deemed to have failed to fully performed his duty of care to urge Defendant B to safely drive the signal after he was on board the Oral Ba. Thus, Defendant B’s liability is limited to 60% by taking into account all circumstances, such as the Plaintiff’s developments on board or the degree of violation of duty of care.

B. Defendant C and D, the parent of Defendant B, claiming the Plaintiff as to whether Defendant C and D are liable for damages, are negligent in providing education to prevent the Defendant B from operating Oralone under a license without permission, or neglecting the duty of care to observe the laws and regulations and to protect and supervise the operation of Oral one, despite the fact that the Defendant C and D were negligent.