2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with B, with the insurance period from June 11, 2014 to June 11, 2015, with respect to C-TP vehicles.

B. On April 8, 2015, at around 02:50, the Defendant was hospitalized on the street in the front of the Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, for the children E of B, who was a driver of war with a vehicle D (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant vehicle”) at the seat of the Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, U.S. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant vehicle”). Accordingly, the Defendant was hospitalized until May 30, 2015 due to an injury, such as the left-hand frame, the light frame, and the mouth, etc., while driving the vehicle D (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”).

C. The Defendant’s vehicle was only covered by liability insurance with the Eastern Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., and the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,828,350,00,000, which is the maximum amount of liability insurance, from April 27, 2015 to July 20, 2015 in accordance with the terms and conditions of the injury security agreement under the said insurance contract entered into with B, as a total of KRW 10,828,350, under the pretext of medical expenses and agreement (i.e., hospital treatment costs of KRW 6,328,350,00). Meanwhile, on June 10, 2015, the Plaintiff received KRW 2,40,000, which is the maximum amount of liability insurance from the Eastern Fire Marine Insurance

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence No. 9-1 through 14, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, since the defendant's negligence, while driving the defendant's vehicle, caused E crossing the crosswalk pursuant to the new subparagraph, while neglecting his/her duty of front-time care, the defendant has a duty to compensate for damages arising therefrom, and the plaintiff has a duty to compensate for damages to E (i.e., KRW 8,428,350 (= KRW 10,828,350 - 2,400,00) paid to E according to the insurance contract.

Therefore, the defendant, as requested by the plaintiff, shall pay the compensation amount and its final insurance money to the plaintiff from July 21, 2015 to the plaintiff of this case.