A. The Plaintiff is a guarantee business operator entrusted by the Minister of Construction and Transportation with the authority to compensate for damages within the scope of liability insurance when a person dies or is injured due to the operation of a vehicle not covered by liability insurance or liability mutual aid pursuant to Article 26(1) of the Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

B. At around 17:30 on January 25, 2001, Defendant B operated C vehicle and driven the door door of the entrance of the bridge located in the Jin-gun of Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Jin-gun, the Defendant left the said vehicle, which led to the death of Nonparty D, where the said vehicle was on the right-hand side, and the vehicle was on board the vehicle after shocking the shock day.

C. The Plaintiff paid 21,00,000 won to the victim pursuant to Article 26(1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act and subrogated to and acquired the right to claim damages.

Defendant A jointly and severally guaranteed Defendant A’s liability for damages against the Plaintiff.

E. On June 11, 2004, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against the Defendant A, “Defendant A shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 21,00,000,000 per annum from September 10, 2001 to the service date of the authentic copy of the payment order, and 5% per annum from that next day to that of the service date of the authentic copy of the payment order, and 20% per annum from that day to that of the complete payment order.” The above payment order was served on August 2, 2004, and confirmed on August 17, 2004.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 21,00,000 won and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from September 10, 2001 to August 2, 2004 and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.