1. With respect to the accident described in paragraph 1 of the attached list, the plaintiff is the defendant based on the insurance contract described in paragraph 2 of the attached list.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer that entered into an insurance contract with B and C Automobiles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) as shown in attached Table 2 with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

B. Around 20:05 on November 30, 2012, the Defendant, who was driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, driving the two-lanes from the south of the Youngdong Intersection 158-17 adjacent to the Seoul Gwangjin-gu, Seoul, to the northwest of the intersection, changed the course into one-lanes. At that time, the Defendant, who was driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was going beyond the road while trying to avoid the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On February 26, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant with respect to the instant accident, as follows:

- Since the Defendant received KRW 15,00,000 from the Plaintiff as damages and agreed to do so mutually, it later waives all rights thereto, and does not raise any civil lawsuit or objection for any reason.

- If the amount of judgment exceeds the amount of judgment received as a result of the lawsuit on the merits, the plaintiff shall be additionally paid, and if the amount received exceeds the amount of judgment, the difference shall be returned to the plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 6 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim for confirmation of existence of an obligation

A. According to the facts of recognition as above, the Plaintiff is liable for damages sustained by the Defendant due to the instant accident as an insurer who entered into an insurance contract with B.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as a whole, the defendant, who is proceeding one lane, can be found to have avoided the plaintiff's vehicle that had changed from the two lanes to the one lane, and the defendant's fault leading to the plaintiff's vehicle that had attempted to change course at the time, while avoiding the plaintiff's vehicle is also caused by the accident in this case.