1. The plaintiffs' respective claims against the defendants are dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 16, 2012, Plaintiff A driven a vehicle E (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) on and around 22:00, and was driving ahead of G in the Gumi City F along the two-lane two-lanes from H oil station room to the 2-lane intersection of the 2-lane, the Plaintiff A was injured by brooming the broom, leading to the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and then by shocking the part behind the left side of the I vehicle owned by Defendant D (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) which was parked on the end of the two-lane side of the right side of the moving direction, and then by shocking the part behind the left side of the I vehicle owned by Defendant D (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

The road in which the accident of this case occurred is two-lanes where the width of one lane is about 3.2m, about 3.3m, and about 0.75m in width of the side, and about 7.25m in total. At the time of the accident of this case, the slope surface was damp at the time of the accident.

C. The Plaintiff B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant Hyundai C Motor Vehicle Insurance Co., Ltd. is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with Defendant D with respect to the Defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted that (i) the accident of this case occurred due to negligence on the side side of the two-lane road where the Defendant D is not allowed to stop the Defendant vehicle at night, because it illegally parked the Defendant vehicle on the side of the two-lane road where it is prohibited to stop at night, and the lights and sidelights are used to turn on the tail lights and sidelights, etc., so the Defendants are liable to compensate each of the plaintiffs for the damages caused thereby.

B. As to Sheb, the Defendants did not illegally park the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident, but did not have any proximate causal relation with the Defendant’s stopping of the Defendant vehicle and the occurrence of the instant accident. Therefore, the Defendants did not have any proximate causal relation with the occurrence of the instant accident.