1. The Defendant’s KRW 37,112,865 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from September 1, 2016 to July 12, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. At around 10:10 on August 17, 2014, the Defendant joining the Defendant: (a) driven a D passenger car (hereinafter “AW”) and, at the end, was negligent in performing his/her duty of care to ensure the safety of the course by checking the front section in front of the Central Highway Chocking Station in the front of the Chocking Station, which was parked on the front section, due to the negligence of failing to perform his/her duty of care to check the safety of the course by well examining the front section; and (b) caused the back of the Ekick Cors Cors van (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”) following the endper of the vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. The instant accident caused water damage equivalent to KRW 329,00 on the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and F, who was driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, caused injury to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, such as brain sugar, climatic salt, tension, etc. requiring two weeks’ medical treatment, and the Plaintiff, who was on board the Plaintiff’s ground, suffered injury to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, salvinum, salvinitis, and salvinum.

C. The Plaintiff entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the Defendant with respect to the Plaintiff’s automobile, and the said insurance contract includes a non-life insurance special agreement to pay insurance proceeds calculated in accordance with the terms and conditions (hereinafter “instant terms and conditions”) when the insured dies or is injured by an accident resulting from an non-insurance motor vehicle.

In the meantime, the vehicle was subscribed only to the personal compensation I (liability insurance) insurance company. However, the automobile without a personal compensation II or a mutual aid contract under the terms and conditions of the present case constitutes an non-life insurance vehicle.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, 5, 12, Eul evidence 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts, the plaintiff suffered injury due to the accident in this case caused by the non-insurance motor vehicle, and thus, the defendant is liable to pay the insurance money to the plaintiff as the insurer under the terms and conditions of this case.

The Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant are the Plaintiff.