1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The Defendants jointly and severally share KRW 101,920,154 to the Plaintiff, and their importance.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a business operator entrusted with the business of guaranteeing motor vehicle accident compensation under Article 45(1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act and an insurer of a non-insurance special agreement with H as the insured.

Defendant A is the driver of EFD car (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”), and Defendant B is the owner of the Defendant vehicle.

B. At around 23:10 on July 27, 2010, Defendant A driven the Defendant vehicle, which was not covered by liability insurance, and proceeded straight along the intersection in front of the Daodong office in Yocheon-si, with the flow of the intersection from the etho-distance boundary to the etho-distance boundary from the etho-distance boundary at the ethical intersection. Defendant A suffered injury by H, who was accompanied by Defendant A, on the front part of the ethma of the f driver’s G taxi which was parked in the signal line from the front part of the moving direction to the front part of the Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

Until May 17, 2011, the Plaintiff paid KRW 70,000,000 for compensation under the Guarantee Business of Automobile Accident Compensation, and KRW 54,095,670 for insurance proceeds under a special contract for accident security for non-life insurance until September 24, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 15 (including each branch number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants jointly are liable to compensate the Plaintiff who subrogated H for the damages incurred by H due to the instant accident.

B. Defendant B asserts to the effect that he lost the operating control and operating profit of the Defendant vehicle since he did not allow Defendant A to operate the Defendant vehicle.

The defendant A, as the children of the defendant B, was living together with the defendant A, and the defendant A had a driver's license, but the defendant B did not seem to have restricted the operation of the defendant's vehicle against the defendant A, but rather, the defendant A was easy to use the defendant's vehicle.