1. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed to the Plaintiff KRW 8,847,273 as well as 5% per annum from May 13, 2011 to August 8, 2014.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) The Plaintiff is the Defendant Korea Railroad Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) around 19:00 on May 13, 201, 201.

) The train operated by the subway No. 1 Line Seoul Station with K206, which has been operated as the paper-sided area (hereinafter referred to as “instant train”).

) While the entrance entrance of a train is closed at the entrance of the Plaintiff’s arms, legs, face, body shielded and the entrance of the train, resulting in the injury of the Plaintiff’s horse and tension, the clocks and tensions, the clocks and tensions of the clocks, the upper right side of the clocks, the clocks of the clocks, the inner section, etc. (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) On the platform that the Plaintiff intended to board the subway, the platform was the rear side of the train, and the engineer of the train was on board the back side of the train and confirmed the safety of the platform through a monitor installed in the vice-head office.

3) Defendant Samsung Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Samsung Fire”).

(4) The Plaintiff paid KRW 4,496,592 at the king treatment costs, and received KRW 1,750,000 from Defendant Samsung Fire.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 9, 21, 25, and 26, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of recognition of liability, if a person was placed in the train entrance, the vice head should check it as a monitor. As such, at least, in the case of the elderly and the elderly, it is anticipated that he will receive physical and mental shocks to a certain degree according to the gate and degree of the gate during the time when the entrance was set up. However, the vice head in charge of opening and closing the entrance of the train at the time did not properly verify whether the Plaintiff, a passenger, was on the completion of boarding.

As such, the defendant Corporation is the user of the Vice-President of the train in this case, according to Article 148(1) of the Commercial Act.