1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 100,452,810 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related amount from October 6, 2015 to February 14, 2019.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. On October 6, 2015, at around 21:00, the Defendant: (a) driven the E 110cc Obaki (hereinafter “Defendant Oba”); (b) proceeded to the direction of the president from the side of the Busan Fire Department, in the direction of the president; (c) the front part of the G Driving’s H Obaba (hereinafter “Plaintiff Oba”), which proceeded to the left part of the road facing the said Obaba in the direction of the president; and (d) conflict with the front wheels of the Defendant’s Obaba (hereinafter “Plaintiff Oba”).

(B) According to the above findings, according to the above findings, the defendant suffered injury, such as external cerebrovascular, etc. due to the accident of this case, and the plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a liability insurance contract (personal compensation I) with regard to I who is the owner of Oral Ba, and the plaintiff Oral Ba with respect to the plaintiff Oral Ba. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, there is evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2 (including paper numbers), Gap evidence No. 3, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 3, Eul evidence No. 3-1, Eul evidence No. 3-2, and Eul evidence No. 3-1, Eul evidence No. 3-2, video, and the purport of the whole oral argument, barring any special circumstance, since the defendant sustained injury due to the operation of Oral Ba, the plaintiff is liable

(G) Although the plaintiff alleged that there was no negligence, the burden of proof is against the plaintiff under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, that is, the following circumstances recognized by the statement No. 2, i.e., the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that there was no negligence in the above G, and instead, G operated a two-wheeled vehicle in violation of Article 16(1) and attached Table 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act.