A. The Plaintiff is an insurer of the health insurance that provides insurance benefits under the National Health Insurance Act, D is a policyholder of the national health insurance, and Defendant B’s federation (hereinafter “Defendant B’s federation”) is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement with Defendant C’s E-si (hereinafter “Defendant C-si”).

B. Defendant C driving a two-lane of the two-lane road adjacent to the G in Ulsan-dong F, Ulsan-gu, U.S.F., and driving from the direction of the East Police Station to the Gsan Bathing Beach, Defendant C shocked the said three-lane road in front of the said G at around February 25, 2016, and 23:45, around February 25, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

Due to the instant accident, D suffered from injury, such as an external wound, and received medical treatment at H hospitals, etc. from that time. The Defendant Federation paid KRW 288,246,490 in total to D’s medical expenses until May 1, 2019.

As the Defendant Federation suspended the payment of D medical expenses on June 3, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 30,965,210 remaining after deducting KRW 10,25,280 of D’s medical expenses from June 4, 2019 to March 24, 2020, from KRW 41,220,49 to KRW 10,25,280 of D’s medical expenses.

E. D filed a lawsuit against the Defendants for the payment of damages arising from the instant accident with the court’s 2018da15412, and on April 23, 2020, the said lawsuit rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation to the effect that “the Defendants jointly pay 90 million won to D by May 31, 2020, and waive the respective remaining claims of D,” and the said ruling of recommending reconciliation was finalized on May 8, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 3 evidence, Eul 1 to 4 evidence, significant facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Recognition of liability for indemnity; and

A. According to the above facts of recognition of liability and the evidence mentioned above, the accident of this case goes without permission on the ground that Defendant C neglected the duty of front-time care.