1. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed with the Plaintiff KRW 103,090,980, and 5% per annum from April 4, 2014 to March 20, 2015.

1. Claim against the defendant A;

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the attached Form;

(A) The term “Defendant C” is a clerical error in the name of Defendant A.

Grounds: Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act (a judgment made by a person deemed as a confession)

2. Defendant B’s claim against Defendant B: (a) left the key of the DNA learning vehicle as indicated in the [Attachment to Defendant B’s own ownership (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”); (b) claimed that Defendant A cannot be held liable for the instant accident, on the ground that Defendant B brought the key to the Defendant vehicle without Defendant B’s permission, driving the Defendant vehicle and caused an accident as indicated in the [Attachment] (hereinafter “instant accident”).

In the absence of special circumstances to deem that the owner's control of operation and the profits from operation were entirely lost in the operation of a motor vehicle without permission by a third party, the owner of the motor vehicle shall be held liable for the accident as an operator under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (hereinafter "the Automobile Accident Compensation Act"), and the determination of whether the driver's control and the profits from operation are lost shall be made by comprehensively assessing and assessing all objective and external circumstances in accordance with social norms, including: (a) the storage and management status of the motor vehicle or its keys; (b) the circumstances enabling the operation regardless of the owner's intent; (c) the personal relationship between the owner and the driver; (d) the driver's intention to return the motor vehicle; (e) the possibility of the owner's

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da1072 delivered on July 10, 1998, Supreme Court Decision 98Da61395 delivered on April 23, 199, Supreme Court Decision 2005Da56728 delivered on July 27, 2006, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the circumstance that the instant case was either disputed or recognized in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, and ① at the time of the instant accident, the Defendants were at the construction site for about one year, and ② Defendant B’s assertion.