1. The Defendant’s KRW 26,819,885 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from September 8, 2015 to October 22, 2015, and the following.

Basic Facts

On September 27, 2010, the Defendant subcontracted soundproofs case (hereinafter referred to as "Slos case") among the AA Housing Site Development Project Construction Works, which was ordered by the Korea Land and Housing Corporation on September 27, 2010.

B, around 17:49 on October 17, 2012, while driving a heavy-type C-type passenger vehicle and driving a two-lane road at a point 54 km away from the D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type D-type, and died by shocking E who completed soundproof construction of soundproofs and other safety facilities recovery, and immediately shocked the back portion of H-type H-type H-type H-type H-type H-type D-type D-type

(hereinafter “instant accident”). Accordingly, B died.

(hereinafter “the deceased’s heir” (hereinafter “the deceased”). If G, J, and K (hereinafter “the deceased’s heir”) as the heir of the deceased filed a lawsuit against G and the Defendant for damages (i.e., damages) on February 14, 2014 by filing a judgment of dismissal on February 14, 2014, the Changwon District Court 2014Na31305, and (ii) on August 27, 2015, “G and the Defendant received from each Party I 1 13,37,773 won and each of them 13,57,73% per annum from October 18, 2012 to August 27, 2015, and each of them 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.”

The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter “The final judgment of this case”). On September 7, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 53,639,770 to the deceased’s inheritors, as the insurer of the Poter vehicle driven by G. The Plaintiff paid the principal and interest calculated up to the time according to the instant final judgment.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11, and all of the arguments, the joint tortfeasors are liable for non-joint and several liability against the victim. However, the joint and several liability is equitable in the internal relationship of the joint and several tortfeasors.