1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

In fact, Plaintiff A from February 28, 2014 to February 19:00 of the same year

3. 1. From around 07:38, a person driving an Otoba (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff Otoba”) and driving the G latter part of the G in front of the G in Daegu Seo-gu, Daegu, with I Textiles from H to the International Textiles, conflicts with the front part of the J Poter Poter, which was parked on the right side of the direction, as described in the attached accident site map, with the front part of the J Ponda (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Ponda”), and thereby, suffered injury, such as the closed frame on the part of the Etoba, and the closure frame of the Etoba, etc.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident.” The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive insurance contract for office cars with the Defendant, and the Plaintiff B is the Plaintiff’s form, the Plaintiff C’s father, and the Plaintiff D’s mother.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 2-2 and 3-3, the assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiffs' assertion that the plaintiff A, while operating the brakes on the road with normal driving along the tea, operated the brakes on the road, and conflict with the defendant vehicle that was illegally parked on the right side of the course, and interfered with traffic. The plaintiff A's fault ratio of the occurrence of the accident in this case is 50%.

Therefore, as the insurer of the Defendant vehicle, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 18,078,915 [Plaintiffs KRW 13,078,915 [Plaintiffs KRW 10,428,00 for property damage [Plaintiffs KRW 13,238,950 for future treatment expenses of KRW 10,490 for future treatment expenses of KRW 10,490 for future treatment expenses of KRW 13,238,950]] 5,000,000 for consolation money] to Plaintiff B as consolation money.

Judgment

In full view of the above evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 1-1 to 7, Eul evidence No. 3-1, 2, and 3-1, 2, and 3-3, and the purport of the whole arguments and arguments as to the commissioner of the Daegu Metropolitan City Police Agency of this Court, the following facts are acknowledged.

The Road Traffic Act shall be at a specified place or at a specified time.