1. The Defendant’s KRW 198,512,840 as well as 5% per annum from May 26, 2017 to September 20, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a special corporation which is entrusted by the Minister of Employment and Labor with the industrial accident compensation insurance business under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and A is a subscriber of the industrial accident compensation insurance, and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract for Bchip car (hereinafter referred to as “fchip”).

B. At around 02:40 on April 2, 2014, C, an employee of A, completed the construction of one bridge painting repair and maintenance work at a point of 8.1km in Incheon National Expressways, the first place of the national expressway, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon, and was carrying the same in loading a train. However, at that time D, C was not discovered due to the driving of a sea-going vehicle, while D was passing the above place, and it was received C’s bridge with a sea-going vehicle without discovering C due to the driving.

As a result, C suffered bodily injury, such as damage to knenee knee knee knee knee and knee knee knee.

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

By May 26, 2017, the Plaintiff recognized the instant accident as an occupational accident and paid C KRW 59,957,100 as temporary layoff benefits (from April 2, 2014 to May 10, 2016), as disability benefits, KRW 134,083,490 as medical care benefits, and KRW 19,13,790 as medical care benefits.

【Facts without dispute over the ground for recognition, Gap’s evidence 1 to Gap’s evidence 5, and Gap’s evidence 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition of the occurrence of the right of indemnity, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages sustained by C due to the instant accident as an insurer of a sea-going vehicle, and the plaintiff may exercise the right of subrogation for the defendant of C within the limit of the insurance benefits paid to C under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

B. As to the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim for damages against the Defendant was extinguished on April 1, 2017, since the period of three years from April 2, 2014, which was the date of the instant accident, was expired.

Gap evidence 8, Gap.