1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendants are the scope of the property inherited from the network C.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of the first instance, except in the following cases.

[Supplementary Use] Part 2, "The Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act" (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") shall be added to the following.

Following the third 6th eth 6th eth 6th eth eth eth 6th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e).

The defendants asserted that the insurance money paid by the plaintiff is paid on consignment by the government for the guarantee of motor vehicle accident compensation business, and the plaintiff can only subrogate the victim's right to claim damages against the operator under Article 3 of the Private Ship Act only in accordance with Article 39 (1) of the Private Ship Act. Thus, the defendants who are not the operator of the Oralbane in this case cannot subrogate the victim's right to claim damages, and the operator's obligation to compensate for damages is not inherited.

However, as seen earlier, C bears liability for damages against E as an operator of the Ortoba under Article 3 of the AB Act, and C’s above liability for damages shall be succeeded to the Defendants, the inheritor, and in this case, for the Defendants who succeeded to C’s above liability as a performance of inheritance obligation, the Defendants need not be the operator under Article 3 of the ABA, and thus, the Defendants are the Defendants.