1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with B with the content that guarantees injuries caused by an non-insurance motor vehicle with respect to C NewM3 vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”).

The Defendant, as the owner of the D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”), concluded a liability insurance contract (personal compensation I) with respect to the Defendant vehicle, for which subscription is enforced under Article 5(1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (hereinafter “Dong Fire & Marine Insurance”) with the Dong Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dong Fire & Marine Insurance”), and the Defendant vehicle constitutes “non-insurance vehicle” under the instant insurance contract.

B. On July 31, 2016, around 20:14, the Defendant’s vehicle was involved in an accident of towing the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the atmosphere of the Hongmun-dong Hyundai Motor Alley (hereinafter “instant accident”). At the time of the instant accident, B was driving the Plaintiff vehicle, and E and F, his spouse, were on board the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

C. From September 19, 2016 to October 24, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 6,754,650 as non-insured injury insurance proceeds to B, E, and F, who are in the position of the insured in respect of non-insured injury ( = medical expenses = KRW 2,054,650,000).

On September 22, 2016, the Plaintiff received 3,300,000 won from the Eastern Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., the Defendant’s liability insurance company.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Defendant’s appeal for subsequent completion is unlawful. As such, the first instance court served the original copy of the judgment by mail to the Defendant on November 22, 2017, but the service of the original copy of the judgment was impossible on November 27, 2017 due to the absence of closure, the original copy of the judgment was served by public notice on December 12, 2017, and the service was effective at the time of December 27, 2017, and the Defendant’s delivery took place on January 27, 2018.