1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. On March 15, 2006, the Defendant driven a non-insurance vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant”) on a non-life-free vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”) and brought about an accident causing injury to the victim F (hereinafter “victim”) by towing the vehicle of the victim F (hereinafter “victim”) in front of the Seoul Mapo-gu Hospital while driving on the road in front of the Seoul Mapo-gu Hospital.

B. The Plaintiff paid KRW 297,390 for medical expenses and agreed amount at the request of the victim, as an insurance company entrusted by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport under Article 30(1) of the Act on Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation (hereinafter “the Automobile Accident Compensation Act”) in the case of personnel accidents arising from the operation of a motor vehicle not covered by liability insurance under Article 5(1) of the Automobile Accident Compensation Guarantee Act.

C. On February 26, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of the above medical expenses and the reimbursement of the agreed amount under Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Da56018, which, on June 19, 2009, accepted the Plaintiff’s claim with respect to the above case in full, rendered a judgment that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 5% per annum from October 12, 2007 to June 3, 2009, 2009, 5% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive on July 10, 2009.

(hereinafter “the judgment prior to the instant case”) D.

On April 19, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on April 19, 201 in order to interrupt the extinctive prescription of the claim for indemnity which became final and conclusive by the judgment prior to the instant lawsuit.

【Fact-finding without dispute over a part of the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 3, obvious facts in the record, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the lawsuit of this case regarding this safety defense, the defendant is the defendant's employee, who is the defendant's employee.