1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part demanding the payment of KRW 193,200 shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 7, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) boarded a D car driven by C (hereinafter “instant vehicle”); and (b) the said vehicle passed ahead of the station in Yeonsu-gu Incheon, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon; (c) there was an accident that the said vehicle was faced by C’s driver’s negligence with delivery to the roadway (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. The Plaintiff suffered from injury, such as minculation of mincule on the right side of the instant accident, and was hospitalized in the E hospital from November 7, 2016 to December 16, 2016, and received treatment at the pertinent hospital, F hospital, G hospital, etc. after discharge.

C. The Defendant is a company that concluded an insurance contract with C with respect to the instant vehicle.

[Ground for Recognition: Each entry without dispute, Gap's 1 to 4, 8 through 12 (including each number)]

2. According to the facts of recognition as above, the Defendant, the insurance company of C, is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident.

However, if an operator of a vehicle permits the boarding of the vehicle for the convenience and interest of the passengers without any consideration, and the passenger receives such a provision for his/her convenience and interest, the amount of compensation may be reduced if it is deemed unreasonable in light of various circumstances, such as the purpose of operation, personal relations between the passengers and the operators, the circumstances leading to his/her participation in the vehicle, and the purpose and active nature of the demand for the boarding of the vehicle, in particular, if it is deemed unreasonable in view of the principle of good faith or equity.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da53141 delivered on February 9, 199). According to the purport of the written evidence No. 1 and the entire argument No. 1, the Plaintiff is the employee of C, and the accident of this case occurred to take the employees of C, including the Plaintiff, into close subway stations after completion of the meeting, and C went to the subway station using the instant vehicle in case of the same time of retirement.