1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the amount ordered below.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. The following facts are apparent in the process of the litigation:

(1) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for reimbursement that the Defendant shall pay KRW 19,534,810 and delay damages therefor to the Plaintiff. On July 20, 2012, the court of first instance accepted part of the Plaintiff’s claim on the following: “The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 13,148,60 and interest calculated at the rate of KRW 5% per annum from April 22, 201 to July 20, 201, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.”

(2) On May 24, 2013, the Defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and the trial court prior to remand accepted part of the Defendant’s appeal on May 24, 201, and rendered a judgment that “The part of the judgment of the first instance against the Defendant ordering payment exceeding 5% per annum from April 22, 2011 to May 24, 2013, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of complete repayment, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed.”

(3) The Plaintiff appealed. On November 14, 2013, the Supreme Court accepted the Plaintiff’s appeal and reversed and remanded the judgment of the party prior to the remand.

(4) Meanwhile, after remanding, the Plaintiff reduced the claim amounting to KRW 3,388,051 as well as damages for delay on the claim amounting to KRW 3,388,051 by filing an application for modification of the claim and the cause of the claim at the trial on April 2015.

B. According to the scope of a trial by the trial court, all of the Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed by the judgment of remand. However, since the Plaintiff reduced the purport of the claim in the trial after remand, the subject of a trial after remand is limited to the reduced purport of the claim.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s B vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to D buses (hereinafter “Defendant bus”).

B. A shall be dated 2010.