1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract containing a special agreement for injury security by an uninsurance vehicle with the family members of E who have driven a D Two-wheeled Automobile (hereinafter “Plaintiff Oba”), and the Defendant A is the owner of G two-wheeled Automobile (hereinafter “Defendant Oba”) driven by the net F.

B. Around 00:15 on July 11, 2016, the networkF driven the Defendant Oraba, driving the Defendant Oraba, leading the two-lanes of the four-lane roads in front of the regular middle school of 142, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, to go straight at the center of the central line in order to go back to the H point located on the opposite part of the H point. On the opposite side, there was a traffic accident where the two-lanes conflict between the front wheels of the Plaintiff Orabab and the front wheels of the Defendant Orababab.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

Due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff E was diagnosed by two years of temporary disability with 13% labor disability, due to the injury of the Plaintiff E, such as the blood transfusion from the external trauma, the left-hand pelpelle, the pelle executive pelle, and the non-pelle pelle.

A. The Plaintiff

By December 6, 2016, E paid 26,55,400 won in total to E with the medical expenses incurred from the instant accident and the agreed amount (including the expenses for after-the-counter treatment). On December 9, 2016, it returned 15,518,960 won of the liability insurance money from the KB Insurance Co., Ltd. which entered into a liability insurance contract with respect to Defendant Oraba, to the indemnity amount.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 10, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of recognition of the occurrence of the duty of indemnity prohibition, the defendant is the owner of the defendant Oral Ba under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and the accident of this case caused by its operation.