1. The Defendant’s KRW 22,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from June 15, 2012 to November 27, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a public corporation entrusted with the industrial accident compensation insurance business by the Minister of Employment and Labor under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”), and the victim A (hereinafter “victim”) was working for the management department of the joint stock company B (hereinafter “B”), and the Defendant entered into an automobile liability insurance contract with the Defendant for the vehicle for which the insurance period for the vehicle for which the owner of B and C in the possession (hereinafter “the instant vehicle for which it had been in possession”) was in possession (hereinafter “the instant vehicle”) from April 26, 201 to April 26, 201, with regard to the insurance period from April 26, 201 to April 26, 201.

B. At around 13:40 minutes of May 2, 2010, the victim was injured by Nonparty D, a worker of Nonparty D, driving the instant vehicle in the B warehouse, and returning to the office, and did not have been considered the victim while getting out of the cargo. Accordingly, the victim suffered injury to the left-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side heat,

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

As an industrial accident insurance benefit, the Plaintiff paid 18,959,180 won of temporary layoff benefits, 16,866,190 won of lump-sum disability benefits, and 17,501,220 won of medical care benefits, and the Defendant paid 50,000 won to the victim on October 7, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages and limitation on the defendant liability;

A. According to the above facts, D, a driver of the instant vehicle, should verify whether there is a person within the radius of work in operating the instant vehicle, but is negligent in doing so.

.the person to be victims;