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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with D, the spouse of C, which includes a non-insured special agreement on the coverage of the E vehicle (hereinafter “non-insured special agreement”).

B. On August 19, 2008, the Defendant, while driving G vehicles owned by F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F Co., Ltd.”) with blood alcohol content of 0.156% without a driver’s license on August 19, 2008, the Defendant shocked C, who cross the crosswalk front of the Y in the direction of the pedestrian signal, by violating the signal, to the front part of the right-hand part of the vehicle harming the vehicle.

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

Until August 3, 2010, the Plaintiff paid C total of KRW 23,296,370 in the name of medical expenses, etc. with insurance proceeds under a non-insurance special agreement, and returned KRW 4,961,330 from the insurer of the vehicle of the sea to the liability insurance proceeds.

(A) The insurer of the vehicle at sea shall pay only the insurance money for liability on the ground of the Defendant’sless driving of the vehicle. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Gap evidence 2 through 5 (including the serial number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is liable to compensate C for damages caused by the instant accident as a driver of a sea-going vehicle, barring any special circumstance, and the plaintiff who has paid C insurance proceeds can exercise the right to claim damages against C in subrogation.

Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff cannot accept the plaintiff's request because he paid 2,200,000 won to the insurer of the vehicle for the exemption from liability, so the defendant paid 2,00,000 won to the insurer of the vehicle for the exemption from liability, and therefore, according to the insurance contract No. 2-1 and No. 2-2, the defendant paid 2,00,000 won to the insurer of the vehicle for the vehicle for the household for the household under the insurance contract applicable to the insurance contract for the vehicle for the household. However, the fact that the insurer of the vehicle for the household for the household for the household for the household was paid only 4,961,30 won to