1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a livelihood security business entity entrusted by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport with the business of guaranteeing motor vehicle accident compensation under Article 30(1) of the Act on the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation (hereinafter “Act”), pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and the Defendant is the owner of B Oba (hereinafter “Defendant Oba”).

B. On August 19, 2011, at around 08:30, the Defendant driving Defendant Oraba, who was not insured by the liability insurance, and driving the first-lane of the four-lane road in front of the opposite road of the opposite road of the opposite road of the opposite road of the opposite road of Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu, Seoul, into the opposite road of the opposite road of the opposite road of the opposite road of the opposite road of the opposite road of the opposite road of the opposite road of the opposite road of the opposite road of the opposite road of the opposite road of the opposite road of the opposite road of the opposite road of the opposite road of the opposite road of the opposite road of the opposite road of the opposite road of the opposite road of the opposite road of the opposite road of the opposite road of the opposite road of the opposite road of the opposite road of the opposite road of the opposite road of the opposite road of the opposite road of

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On March 28, 2012, the Plaintiff received a claim for the payment of compensation for damage on the ground that Defendant Orala is an uninsurance vehicle, and paid KRW 8,920,760,000 as the insurer entrusted with the business of guaranteeing motor vehicle accident compensation by the government in accordance with the law of allocation, for medical expenses of KRW 8,81,420, and for damages of KRW 39,340,00,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 6, 8 through 10 (including each number), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of the right of indemnity;

A. According to the above facts and the evidence of the above, although the defendant could expect pedestrians to cross the road without permission because the accident time of this case remains at the work time, it shall be deemed that there was negligence of neglecting the duty to cross the road in front of the crosswalk, and therefore, C suffered from the accident of this case.