1. The Defendant’s KRW 33,928,571 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from December 27, 2016 to October 12, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the wife of the network C (hereinafter referred to as “the network”), and the Defendant is the E-user who drives a D taxi owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant taxi”) as a corporation operating the cab passenger transport business.

B. On December 27, 2016, E, while driving the Defendant cab on or around 10:25, he/she took part in a dispute with the Deceased on the part of the deceased, while driving his/her G cab in front of the G cafeteria located in the Daejeon-gu, Daejeon, without turning on the direction, etc. on the direction, etc. on the E-lane, while driving his/her G cab, and the deceased reported his/her vehicle to the police, so he/she would cause the deceased to kill the deceased, and then taken part in the gate (25cm in total length, 13cm in length of the 쇠 part, 13cm in length of the 쇠 part, and 3cm in diameter of the 쇠). It was difficult for the deceased to take part of the head of the deceased, who was reported to the police, up to 13 times in total as the above Do Ri.

As a result, the Deceased died from the Danam Hospital on the same day at around 14:25.

(hereinafter “instant tort”). C.

E was prosecuted for the instant tort and was sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment for the commission of murder on March 16, 2017 (the Daejeon District Court 2017Gohap24), the dismissal judgment on June 16, 2017, and the dismissal judgment on August 29, 2017, respectively, became final and conclusive.

As the heir of the deceased, the wife, the child I and J are children of the Plaintiff and the former wife.

E. The Plaintiff filed an application for rescue from a crime victim on the ground of the instant tort, and received KRW 87,896,160 from the State on March 8, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap 1, 2, 7 through 10, Eul 6's entries, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. On the ground that the Plaintiff committed the instant tort, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant, the employer of E, claimed the employer’s liability as follows.

1. The tort in this case is ① another taxi in the position of an employee as an employee.