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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract (hereinafter “the instant insurance contract”) with respect to FF vehicles, including a non-insured special agreement with respect to insurance (hereinafter “the instant special agreement”). According to the instant insurance contract, the scope of the insured under the instant special agreement includes not only E, the insured, but also his spouse and children.

B. At around 02:45 on March 16, 2013, D: (a) driven the said vehicle by driving the said vehicle on the back seat of G Otoba (hereinafter referred to as the Defendant’s vehicle) owned by the Defendant; and (b) led to a straight signal at the front of the Seoul Eunpyeong-gu I Intersection, and (c) caused the death of D and H by shocking the vehicle at the right time in the opposite lane by failing to make a left-hand turn, while the signal at the time was straighten signaled.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). C.

By May 27, 2013, according to the instant special agreement, the Plaintiff paid KRW 167,882,680 to H’s bereaved family members for the purpose of treatment and agreement, and returned KRW 112,263,240 from Samsung Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., a liability insurer for the Defendant’s vehicle, with the automobile liability insurance amount.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-4 evidence, purport of whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant, as an operator under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by H due to the instant accident as the owner of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Plaintiff, by paying the insurance money to H, exempted the Defendant from liability, and acquired the right to indemnity against the Defendant by subrogation by the insurer under Article 682 of the Commercial Act, so the Defendant is liable to

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant employed J as a delivery source to the restaurant operated by the Defendant and had the Defendant drive the Defendant’s vehicle during working hours, and after his retirement from K.