2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On December 25, 2008, at around 18:36, the Defendant, while driving a motor vehicle in front of D (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”) and driving a motor vehicle along the two-lanes of the two-lanes, found the Plaintiff’s Intervenor who illegally crossed the road from the right side of the proceeding to the left side, but did not avoid it, and shocked the Plaintiff’s Intervenor.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

The Plaintiff’s Intervenor suffered injury, such as the injury of less advanced brain, e.g., f., e., e., e., e., f., e., f., e., f., e., e., e.,

C. Since the Defendant’s vehicle constitutes an non-life insurance without liability insurance, the Plaintiff, as an insurer entrusted with the business of guaranteeing motor vehicle accident compensation under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, paid the Plaintiff’s Intervenor totaling KRW 30,205,600 as medical expenses and advance payment from November 10, 2009 to December 20, 2010.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3 evidence, Gap 4-1 through 4, Gap 8-12 evidence, Gap 14 and 15 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion that the plaintiff is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff's Intervenor due to the accident in this case. The plaintiff, who entrusted the guarantee business of motor vehicle accident compensation and paid compensation to the plaintiff's Intervenor instead of the defendant, can claim for reimbursement of 30,205,600 won paid by the plaintiff against the defendant.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim for indemnity against the defendant has expired by prescription.

B. The Plaintiff is the insurer who paid insurance money, and the Plaintiff acquired the damage claim due to the tort committed against the Defendant by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor in accordance with the legal principle of subrogation, and the damage claim due to the tort is the victim or his.