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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking reimbursement (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Da6179732, hereinafter “instant previous lawsuit”), and the appellate court rendered a judgment in favor of the Defendant on the following purport: (a) the appellate court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff:

(1) On October 15, 2010, the Defendant concluded a liability insurance contract for sports facility business entities (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with the Seoul Central District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 2014Na50837, May 19, 2015). However, around 12:50 on July 21, 2010, the Plaintiff, while engaging in a wing practice at 17 string in Twit in Twits No. 18, while engaging in a golf wing practice, he/she was able to recover damages, such as mercury, spawn, and spawnosis (hereinafter “instant accident”). Accordingly, the Defendant, on December 15, 2010, paid the Plaintiff KRW 130,000,000 under the proviso to the Commercial Act (hereinafter “instant accident”). As such, the Defendant may exercise the claim for damages against the Plaintiff’s insurance proceeds under the proviso to Article 3730,000,000 won.

Meanwhile, the amount of damages that the Plaintiff is liable to pay to C due to the instant accident is KRW 5,607,545 (i.e., actual income treatment costs) (i., property damages such as KRW 4,607,545), and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 5,607,545 and delay damages to the Defendant who exercises the right to claim damages by subrogation of C.

B. The above appellate judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter “The final judgment of this case”) . The ground for recognition . The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. When the Defendant alleged the Plaintiff’s assertion against the Plaintiff, the extinctive prescription of the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff had already expired, and the Defendant was not the claimant.

Nevertheless, the final and conclusive judgment of this case accepted the defendant's claim, and the final and conclusive judgment of this case is accepted by the defendant's claim that is not a party.