1. The Defendant’s KRW 103,972,030 as well as 5% per annum from August 13, 2016 to June 27, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a guarantor entrusted by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport with the business of guaranteeing motor vehicle accident compensation under Article 30(1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (hereinafter “Act”), and the Defendant is a B motor vehicle driver (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”).

B. On November 17, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 17:35, the instant vehicle, which was not covered by the liability insurance, was located in the first lane in Daegu-gu Dong-gu, and at the same time, at the right side of the direction of the Defendant at the time, the Newcheon Elementary School adjoined the road to the right side of the road; (b) it was anticipated that the first school’s traffic was scheduled on the road, and there was a large number of vehicles on the opposite line; (c) but the Defendant driven a vehicle with a speed of about 70 to 80km per hour on the left side; (d) among them, the Defendant driven the instant vehicle at a speed of about 70 to 80km and caused the death of E without permission, due to shock on the right side of the road.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

The Plaintiff received a claim for compensation for damage on the ground that the instant automobile is an non-insurance vehicle, and paid KRW 103,972,030 to E’s bereaved family members, by offsetting 50% of E’s negligence, from August 12, 2016, as an insurer entrusted with the business of guaranteeing motor vehicle accident compensation by the Government in accordance with the Work Act.

On April 6, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years and 80 hours for imprisonment without prison labor in October, 2017, in the Daegu District Court 2016 High-Ma3132.

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, Eul evidence 1 and 2, Eul evidence 4, the video and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, the defendant neglected the duty of care in front of the crosswalk, although it could expect pedestrian crossings without permission because the vehicle is parked in the opposite lane at the time of the accident in this case.