1. The claims of the plaintiff (appointed party) and the designated parties are dismissed, respectively.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. At around 22:15 on October 25, 2013, G driven a H rocketing car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and received I, while driving a two-lane of the two-lanes of the CY, which is located in the two-lanes of the CYY, the CY, the front part of the Defendant vehicle, and accordingly, I died due to cerebral damage.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.

Plaintiff

B The denial of the I, the plaintiff C, D, A, E, and F are children of I, and the defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive contract insurance with respect to the defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment on the grounds of the claim

A. The plaintiffs' assertion that the accident of this case occurred due to the failure of the driver of the defendant vehicle to neglect his duty of care on the front door, and failure to discover I (hereinafter "the deceased") who was faced with the road on the road, and caused the death. Thus, the defendant is the insurer of the defendant vehicle, who is responsible for compensating the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the accident of this case.

B. Since Article 58 of the Road Traffic Act provides that pedestrians cannot pass or cross the expressway or motorway, drivers of motor vehicles operating the expressway or motorway have no duty of care to drive motor vehicles by preparing for pedestrians to anticipate their rapid stop until they pass the expressway or motorway, except in extenuating circumstances.

The following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensive consideration of the purpose of the entire pleadings in the video of No. 4 No. 14, namely, ① the place in which the instant accident occurred was a national highway No. 38, a motorway, and the time of the occurrence of the accident was also 2:15, and it was not easy for the driver of the vehicle to secure a view by lighting at around 22:15, ② the Defendant vehicle.