1. The Defendant’s succeeding intervenor’s amounting to KRW 570,279,183 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual contribution from February 25, 2013 to February 15, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant Hyundai Cargo Damage Insurance Co., Ltd. is the insurer who has taken over the automobile comprehensive insurance contract regarding the vehicles B (hereinafter referred to as “vehicle”), and the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor is the insurer who has taken over the status of the above insurance contract from the Defendant Hyundai Cargo Damage Insurance Co., Ltd.

B. The Plaintiff is a driver who drives a C-si owned by Nonparty 1.

C. On February 25, 2013, at around 01:08, Nonparty D driven a sea vehicle from the Magdong, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, and proceeded in violation of the signal two-lanes depending on the two-lanes in the direction of the sunlight distance from the neste distance from the neste distance from the nestg., Nonparty D met the left side part of the Plaintiff’s driver’s C cab, who was proceeding in the direction of the Han field direction from the right side to the right side of the Han field direction, and caused the Plaintiff to suffer injury, such as cerebrovassis under the bovine spongiformiformiform, and omitted from the galmath of the telegraph.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). [Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry in Gap’s evidence 1 through 7 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the above fact of recognition of liability for damages, the defendant is the insurer of a sea-going vehicle, and the defendant succeeding intervenor acquires the status of the above insurance contract from the defendant, and thus, the defendant is liable to compensate all damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the traffic accident of this case pursuant to Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act and Article 3 of the Guarantee

3. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s head at the time of the instant accident, the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor was presumed to have failed to wear a safety level. If the instant accident entered the intersection with a large width, he could prevent the accident, but the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor was negligent in neglecting the duty of Jeonju even if he did so.