A. On January 3, 2015, the Defendant driven Oba (hereinafter “Defendant Oba”) on the 19:12th day of the 19:12th day of the 2015, and driven the four-lane road in front of the G convenience point located in the FY-gu, Busan, from the right side to the Guwest-dong. On the left side of the course, the Defendant, while the signal of the crosswalk was a red signal, the Defendant’s Obaba, which turned down the unauthorized crossing to the front side of the Haba, even though the signal was a red signal.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). H suffered injuries, such as cage cage cages, etc., which require eight weeks’ medical treatment due to the instant accident.

B. At the time, Defendant Oba subscribed only to the liability insurance of IB Co., Ltd.

C. Around February 2014, H’s child J entered into an automobile insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with the Plaintiff, including a non-insurance policy that compensates the insured and their lineal ascendants for injury caused by a non-insurance vehicle within a certain scope, on the part of the insured and their lineal ascendants, etc. as to their own vehicles from February 15, 2014 to February 15, 2015.

According to the foregoing special agreement, the Plaintiff paid KRW 66,830,760 as insurance money to H from June 4, 2015 to November 2, 2016; and KRW 15,000,000 as agreed money for consolation money, business suspension damage, other damages; and future treatment expenses, etc. on October 6, 2016.

In addition, on August 28, 2015 and November 29, 2016, the Plaintiff returned KRW 36,406,940,00 in total, from the liability insurance company of Defendant Orala, to the liability insurance company of Defendant Orala.

E. On May 26, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor for April, 2015 and one year of suspended execution for the instant accident, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(Reasons for Recognition) Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant neglected the duty of the front-time watcher, etc.