1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 52,561,940 and Defendant B from December 1, 2015 to May 31, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that has entered into an indemnity insurance accident guarantee contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with the C or its spouse as a compensation key in the event that the parents, children, etc. of C or their spouse suffered an injury by an non-insurance vehicle, and D is the E’s mother, the spouse of C.

B. At around 20:40 on March 15, 2015, Defendant A driven a FF Ecoos Vehicle owned by Defendant B (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) and driven the said road at a speed of about 50km at a speed of about 183 kilometers from the 183 large-scale Scoodong-ro, Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, by negligence, which neglected the duty of Jeonju City, while driving the three-lane of the instant vehicle at a speed of about 50km, Defendant A caused D crossing the said road on the right side from the left side of the running direction of the instant vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”) C.

The Plaintiff, as an insurer of the instant insurance contract, paid KRW 52,561,940 to D, the insured, by November 30, 2015.

[Ground for Recognition] Defendant A: Judgment by the deemed confession (Article 208(3)2 and Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act) (Article 208(3)2 and Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff paid KRW 52,561,940 insurance money to D in accordance with the insurance contract of this case due to the Plaintiff’s negligence on the part of Defendant A’s assertion. Defendant A is the driver of the instant vehicle, and Defendant B is the operator of the instant vehicle, who is the owner of the instant vehicle, and is liable for compensating the victim for damages pursuant to Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

B. Around January 2015, Defendant B lent the instant vehicle to G on the condition that he/she would not transfer the instant vehicle to another person. However, G transferred the instant vehicle to H without permission to borrow money using the instant vehicle, and H’s infant is the birth of the Defendant A.