1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 50,120,570 with respect to the Plaintiff, and 5% per annum from March 1, 2016 to September 28, 2016.

1. Facts of premise;

A. C is a person who entered into an employment contract with D and has been engaged in the quality office.

B. On October 30, 2013, at around 15:35, Defendant A, around 15:35, 2013, while driving a typator for typology, he/she was injured by both sides of C, such as the alleys, shots, and shots, with the front wheels, and suffered injury, such as the mouths and shots of both sides.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

Defendant B is the owner of the above sofaging machine, and Defendant Eastern Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. is the insurer to compensate for the damages incurred in relation to the above sofaging machine.

The Plaintiff paid temporary layoffs 39,898,050 won, medical care benefits 46,564,740 won, and disability benefits 46,564,740 respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 1, 2, 4 through 9 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts, pursuant to Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, Defendant A and B are liable for damages arising from the said insurance contract and the accident in this case under Article 724 of the Commercial Act as an insurer of the automobile comprehensive insurance contract.

B. However, C also has a duty of care to live well on the front left left and right and to prevent shock with the construction vehicle even though he had a duty of care to prevent the shock with the construction vehicle. Therefore, such circumstances should be considered in calculating the amount of damages, and the Defendants’ liability is limited to 80%.

3. Scope of occurrence of the plaintiff's right to indemnity

A. The Plaintiff of the right to indemnity may, by paying temporary layoff benefits, medical care benefits, and disability benefits as above, exercise by subrogation the right to claim damages against the Defendants of G, the subject-matter of which is identical with each of the above insurance benefits, within the scope of each insurance benefits pursuant to Article 87(1) of the Industrial

Supreme Court Decision 200Do448 delivered on January 24, 1997