1. The Defendant’s KRW 26,808,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from February 28, 2015 to December 21, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to ASP car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B private taxi (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. C, at around 10:20 on April 27, 2013, driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the condition of 0.182% of blood alcohol concentration, and driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the condition of 0.182%, C was unable to keep the lane on the two-lane road in front of the transmission point of the Hyundai Motor Vehicle Tracheon-si, Macheon-si, Macheon-si, Macheon-si, in the direction of the post office of Songcheon-si, and led to two-lanes.

As a result, the Defendant’s vehicle stopping on the two-lanes in the front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is shocked along with D (the owner of the Defendant’s vehicle) and E in front of the Defendant’s vehicle at the same time, and due to this accident, E dies on the spot and suffers heavy injury.

C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 268,080,000 to his/her heir by February 27, 2015, with insurance money arising from the foregoing accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The accident at issue regarding the claim for indemnity is deemed to have affected the expansion of the damage by the negligence that the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle neglected the duty to keep the vehicle in front due to drinking and driving close, and the negligence that the driver of the defendant's vehicle stops on the adjacent road due to the intersection, and the victims were standing on the road.

In addition to these circumstances, it is reasonable to 10% of the negligence of Defendant vehicle in light of the circumstance of the accident, etc.

By February 27, 2015, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 268,080,000 by agreement, etc., and the Defendant does not dispute the adequacy of insurance proceeds.

Therefore, the defendant's 26,808,00 won among the plaintiff and its 10% from February 28, 2015 are disputed about the existence and scope of the defendant's obligation.