1. The Defendant’s KRW 25,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from January 6, 2016 to April 8, 2016, and the next day.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company entrusted by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport with the business of guaranteeing motor vehicle accident compensation under Article 30 (1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

B. Around 18:30 on December 6, 2014, the Defendant driven an Ortoba, which did not purchase an insurance policy, and proceeded with the first line road of the C Pharmacy located in Kimhae-si B from the 1string-dong community service center to the string-distance. The Defendant shocked the D, which opened the crosswalk, and caused D to inflict an injury on D, such as the 12th century, the lower court, the lower court, and as a result, caused the impairment of the function of the right-hand slot and the satisfaction.

C. The Plaintiff first paid KRW 10,000,000 as to D’s disability on February 27, 2015, on the basis of the payment standards for insurance money stipulated in the terms and conditions of liability insurance within the insurance coverage. From March 27, 2015 to January 4, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,000,000 in total as D’s medical expenses three times from March 27, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute, Gap 1-8-5's statements and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in attached statutes;

3. Determination

A. (1) According to the fact of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff may exercise in subrogation the right to claim damages against the Defendant, who is liable for damages arising from an accident as a driver of Orba under Article 39(1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, within the scope of compensation paid to D pursuant to Article 39(1) of the same Act

(2) Furthermore, in full view of the facts such as D’s age, treatment period, right slot, and rate of loss of labor ability due to failure to perform the function of satisfaction with the entire pleadings, which can be acknowledged by adding the aforementioned circumstances and results of the accident as seen earlier, it can be sufficiently recognized that the compensation paid to D does not exceed the reasonable scope of damages.