1. The Defendant’s KRW 29,359,120 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from December 2, 2014 to April 2, 2015.

The key issue of the instant case is whether there is a proximate causal relation that E has caused an accident that he/she parked in a parking-prohibited zone, and whether E is negligent.

Facts of recognition

In full view of the purport of the whole pleadings, the following facts can be acknowledged in Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 1 to Eul evidence 4 (including additional number).

The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with Nonparty E and F Saturdays.

At the time of the accident, E was parked in the street (side) of the second-lane road on the side of the river among the four-lane roads near H points in Ulsan-gu G, Ulsan-gu, and this is a parking prohibition zone.

D On September 17, 2014, at around 03:39 without a license, the Defendant was taken along the Defendant on the 125cc Matoba, who was stolen, and even though the Matoba did not turn on the Matoba, the said road was at a rapid speed different from the above road, and the direction of the Matoba's driving system was not changed to the direction of the Matoba's driving system, and the latter part of the F vehicle conflict with the latter part of the Matoba's driving system and was restored

Accordingly, the defendant suffered serious injury.

On December 2, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 29,359,120 to the I Hospital as advance payment of the Defendant’s medical expenses.

Many vehicles are parked in the road dog regardless of usual night, and several vehicles were parked in front of the F vehicle even at the time of the accident.

F. A crosswalk is installed behind the F. The street was installed next to the crosswalk.

The width of the above road is 3.5m or 4.3m or 4.3m or 7.8m or more in total, and the width of the F vehicle is 2.3m or more.

At the time, D was a 99-year student in middle school, and was a 97-year student in high school than the defendant who was a 3-year student in high school.

At the time, the defendant did not write a fitness.

The defendant was aware of the fact that D was stolen from d, and that it was a non-license.