1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part that was reversed by the Supreme Court Decision 2014Da206853 Decided September 10, 2015.

1. After remand, the plaintiff won part of the claim of this case in the first instance court (as to the defendant A and the defendant B, part of the 33,178,870 won and delay damages as to the defendant A and the defendant B, and the defendant interesting State Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant company").

(3) As to the above Defendants and each of the above money, only 33,078,670 won and damages for delay were cited). However, the judgment prior to the remanded all of the Defendants’ appeals, while the judgment prior to the remanded all of these appeals, the Plaintiff cited some of the claims extended in the trial prior to the remanded by the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff added 53,440 won and damages for delay to the previous purport of the claim).

Therefore, the Defendants appealed again, and the judgment of remanding was accepted by the Defendants’ final appeal, and reversed the part against the Defendants in the judgment before remand and remanded to the court of original instance. Accordingly, the subject of the judgment after remand is limited to the part of the Plaintiff’s claims extended in the judgment before remanding and the part of the judgment before remanding.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer of the health insurance under the National Health Insurance Act, and the Defendant Company is an insurance company that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the instant vehicle owned by Defendant B (hereinafter “instant vehicle”). From July 11, 2007 to July 11, 2008, with respect to the instant vehicle.

B. Defendant B, a child of Defendant B, was driving the instant vehicle without a driver’s license on January 2, 2008 and going to a full three-distance outflow from the front road of the Government of the Republic of Korea, Defendant B, due to negligence in performing the duty of care to care to accurately operate the steering and steering devices on the road in front, front, front, and right and right and right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the direction of the operation of the instant vehicle, and Defendant B, a driver of the instant vehicle, who was on the right side of the driving direction (hereinafter “instant accident”), had D, who was on the top of the steering force, receive approximately twelve weeks of medical treatment.