A. The Plaintiff as a party is a corporation established pursuant to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”), which is entrusted by the Minister of Labor with an industrial accident compensation business, and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile mutual aid agreement with the B Stock Company (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and C Bus (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. Around 08:20 on October 13, 2014, the instant accident D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) leased the Defendant’s vehicle from the non-party company to his workplace with the driver E, who was employed by the non-party company. While driving the Defendant vehicle at around 08:20 on October 13, 2014, the Defendant was suffering from the injury of the Non-party H, an employee of D, who was on board the Defendant vehicle, by driving the Defendant vehicle at the direction of the Gugwon-gun’s National Road G heading of the Gangwon-gun-gun, and the Defendant’s vehicle was broom off in the direction of the first and second direction, and then, the lower part of the Defendant’s hicker’s H, a staff member of D, who was on board the Defendant vehicle, caused the injury, such as the escape card of signboards (Y5,000 p. 1) and the so on.

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

From October 13, 2014 to October 7, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,643,380 of medical care benefits, temporary disability compensation benefits, KRW 53,01,410 of disability benefits, and KRW 41,346,370 of disability benefits.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. As to the cause of the claim, the non-party company provided the defendant's vehicle as the employee for commuting to and from work of the employee of the defendant D and had E drive the defendant vehicle. The non-party company still drives the defendant vehicle even if it was used for commuting to and from work of the D employee as the defendant vehicle was operated according to the route designated by the D.