1. The Defendant’s decision on performance recommendation for the Defendant’s claim for reimbursement amounting to Seoul Southern District Court 2016 Ghana595.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with Asi (hereinafter “Plaintiff taxi”) and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with B (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 06:00 on August 18, 2016, Plaintiff taxi drivers parked along four lanes prior to the new construction site in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul. In order to get off passengers, Plaintiff taxi drivers stopped.

Plaintiff

In order to get the taxi passengers into the construction site in the above four-lanes, there was an accident where the fenced part of the defendant's vehicle, which was proceeding to the right side of the plaintiff's taxi, following the left side of the plaintiff's vehicle, was shocked by the door of the plaintiff's taxi (hereinafter "the accident of this case").

C. Under an insurance contract, the Defendant paid KRW 1,241,00 to August 24, 2016 at the repair cost of the Defendant vehicle.

The Defendant brought a lawsuit seeking payment of KRW 1,116,90 (=1,241,000 + 90%) out of the insurance money paid as the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle against the Plaintiff by asserting that the negligence of the Plaintiff taxi in the instant accident was 90%.

(Seoul Southern District Court 2016 Ghana 594095). (e)

On September 21, 2016, “The defendant (the plaintiff of this case) paid 1,116,900 won to the plaintiff (the plaintiff of this case) and 5% per annum from August 24, 2016 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum from the next day to the full payment date,” the above court made a decision of performance recommendation (the next day to the "decision of performance recommendation of this case").

On October 15, 2016, the decision of performance recommendation became final and conclusive on October 15, 2016 because the Plaintiff did not raise any objection even after receiving the instant decision of performance recommendation.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 3, whole purport of pleading

2. Assertion and determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) The defendant's vehicle starts after the plaintiff's taxi starts.