1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

Claim:

1. Basic facts - On October 18, 2006, C driven a D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) around 13:42, and tried to turn to the left to the left at the right side of Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si, while going to the left to the right side of Kimcheon-si, and received G-si (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”) directly going to the direction of Kimcheon Police Station from the right side of Mungcheon-si.

In the above accident, H, the passenger of the Plaintiff, suffered from injury, such as damage to the pelle plate on the half-month.

- The Plaintiff, a mutual aid project entity, which entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Plaintiff’s owner of the vehicle, paid KRW 5,784,000 in total for the treatment costs and agreed amount to H by December 27, 2006.

- The defendant is the owner of the defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, evidence A1 through 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In full view of the records and images of the evidence No. 2 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant vehicle may recognize the fact that the defendant vehicle tried to turn to the left at a place other than the intersection that can turn

Therefore, the Defendant, the owner of the Defendant’s vehicle, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, who compensateed for the damages caused by the said accident, the amount of KRW 5,784,00 as the performance of the obligation for reimbursement, as well as damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from December 28, 2006 to July 12, 2014, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, including medical expenses, as sought by the Plaintiff, and 20% per annum prescribed by the former Civil Procedure Promotion Act from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion (1) The Defendant’s vehicle was operated by the former husband at the time of the Defendant’s assertion.

The defendant is not aware of C.

C seems to have caused the accident while driving without permission or theft.

Therefore, the defendant lost the operator's identity.

(2) The phrase “a person who operates an automobile for his own sake” under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act shall control the operation of the automobile and benefit therefrom.