1. The defendant paid KRW 37,377,270 to the plaintiff and 5% per annum from September 4, 2019 to August 6, 2020.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with C and D, including an injury security contract with respect to the non-insurance vehicle.

The defendant is the driver or owner of an agricultural Track which is not covered by the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance, etc.

B. On March 30, 2019, around 13:10 on March 30, 2019, an accident, such as a traffic accident report (2) in attached Form 3(2).

(The plaintiff's vehicle is Ma2 Vehicle, Defendant Tracker, and Defendant Ma1 Vehicle). The accident in this case C suffered injury, such as the closure frame of body bodies on broad bridges.

C. The Plaintiff assessed the negligence of the insured C as 30%, and paid insurance proceeds of KRW 38,253,090 to hospital treatment expenses, agreed fees, etc.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-4, Eul 6-6, 6-7, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The insurer of a special contract for indemnity security with an uninsurance motor vehicle within the scope of the insurer’s right of subrogation is not taking over risks based on the actual amount of damages of the insured, but is limited to the amount calculated according to the standard for the payment of insurance proceeds stipulated in the ordinary terms and conditions. Thus, in cases where an insurer who entered into a special contract for indemnity security with an uninsurance motor vehicle pays insurance proceeds to the insured, the scope of vicarious exercise of the insurer’s right of compensation for damages pursuant to the proviso to Article 729 of the Commercial Act is limited to the insured amount calculated reasonably in accordance with the standard for the payment of insurance proceeds under the ordinary terms and conditions within the scope of the insured’s right of compensation for damages held against the obligor and paid to the insured (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da8716, Oct. 15, 2014). Therefore, the right of compensation for damages that the Plaintiff may vicariously exercise to the Defendant is the lesser amount compared with the amount

B. Damage claim