1. The Defendant’s KRW 45,279,231 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from November 10, 2015 to June 11, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person entrusted with the industrial accident compensation insurance business by the Minister of Employment and Labor pursuant to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and B is a worker of C who is an industrial accident compensation insurance policyholder, and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract for D automobiles (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On August 10, 2015, at around 09:19, E driven the Defendant’s vehicle, and driven the intersection without signal, etc. in front of the G cafeteria located in F, Busan, along the right part of the one-lane, whichever is about five meters wide from the direction of the new subway station on the roadside. In this case, the Plaintiff’s vehicle HOba (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) driven the front part of the B driver’s Haba (hereinafter “the instant accident”). On the same day, B died due to the instant accident, due to the instant accident, due to the malphical heaconsissis disorder on the same day.

C. The Plaintiff recognized the instant accident as an occupational accident, and paid KRW 111,384,00 for bereaved family benefits and KRW 10,281,610 for funeral expenses to the spouse I, who is the bereaved family of B, as well as KRW 111,384,00 for bereaved family benefits and KRW 10,281,610 for funeral expenses.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 1-2, 2-2, 7, 9, Eul's statements or images, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Defendant’s liability for damages and Plaintiff’s right of indemnity;

A. According to the defendant's liability for damages and the fact that the plaintiff's right to indemnity occurred, the accident in this case occurred due to the negligence that did not look at the plaintiff's vehicle's progress while driving on the right side of the one-lane road, and that the accident in this case occurred due to the negligence that did not perform the duty of front-time watching.

In accordance with the circumstances, etc. of the accident in this case, the ratio of negligence in E and B shall be 8:2.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate B for the part of the damage caused by the accident in this case, which corresponds to the E's ratio of fault.