1. With respect to the traffic accident described in the attached Form, the intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive personal automobile insurance contract with Nonparty B and C with the insurance coverage period from March 9, 2011 to March 9, 2012, with the large number of persons I and II as insurance coverage.

B. Nonparty D caused an accident as indicated in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant accident”) while driving a vehicle owned by the above B, and thereby suffered injury to the Defendant, such as an injury of a wound-free flachising in two or more open locations.

(A) The plaintiff shall assume the liability for damages related to the above insurance contract). 【The ground for recognition - Gap's evidence 1, Gap's evidence 3-1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the claim of this case

A. The instant case, over a long-term period, tried to commission a physical examination as to the degree of contribution of king (or spawn) with respect to the instant accident and the Defendant’s injury. However, the Defendant repeatedly received hospital treatment after the instant accident, suffered from pedestrian disability, cognitive disability, etc., and subsequently expressed his intention that it is difficult to commission a physical examination. Accordingly, a harmonious judgment should be made by taking into account the current circumstances rather than unilaterally disadvantageous judgment of the Plaintiff and the Defendant among themselves, according to the principle of burden of proof, rather than unilaterally disadvantageous judgment of the Defendant.

B. The Defendant sought medical expenses of KRW 4,768,04, consolation money of KRW 16,00,00 as damages, and the Plaintiff asserts that the contribution of the king should be considered, and that the amount of contribution should be deducted of KRW 3,00,000 already paid. However, it was true that the Defendant suffered from the pain prior to the instant accident, but it was also true that the Defendant was shocked due to the instant accident, such as the Plaintiff’s blood transfusion, hemal hemal hemal hemal hemal transfusion, hemal hemal hemal hemal hemal hemal hemal hemal hemal hems, and the 3,000,000 which was already paid. The Defendant accepted part of the Plaintiff’s contribution ratio and the Defendant’s medical expenses.