A. Defendant Samsung Fire Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd.: KRW 27,500,000 and its therefrom from March 7, 2015.

A. Facts of recognition 1) The Intervenor B, the Defendant’s assistant Intervenor B, around March 7, 2015, referred to as “Defendant Oba” (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Oba”) around 21:20.

2) The Plaintiff’s bicycle front part of the Plaintiff’s driving, which was driven on the left side of the direction of the proceeding while driving the 565 stoo distance from the Songpa-gu Seoul Olympic Games to the 1-dong Public Security Center from the stomo apartment, was contacted (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) The Plaintiff suffered injury to the Plaintiff, such as blood transfusion, etc. due to the instant accident.

3) Defendant Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Thosung Fire”)

(4) As to Defendant Oba, Defendant Nba Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Lbason”) concluded an automobile comprehensive insurance contract containing a clause on indemnity insurance for an insured person (hereinafter referred to as “instant terms and conditions”) with the effect that, as stipulated in the terms and conditions, the insured would compensate the Plaintiff for the injury caused by an accident arising from an uninsurance motor vehicle as the insured, the amount of damages incurred therefrom would be up to 500 million won per person, as stipulated in the said terms and conditions.

The main contents of the instant terms and conditions are as shown in Appendix 1 Insurance Terms and Conditions.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, 11, 15 through 18, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 4 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the Plaintiff was injured due to the operation of Defendant Obane, and barring any special circumstance, Defendant Samsung F&M, as an insurer of Defendant Obane, is obligated to pay damages under liability insurance and insurance proceeds under the special agreement on indemnity for non-insurance loss.

The Defendants asserted that Defendant Oraba and the Plaintiff’s bicycle did not conflict, but the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, are as follows.