1. The Defendant: KRW 23,928,169; and KRW 5% per annum from January 30, 2016 to June 15, 2018; and

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to the G vehicle owned by F (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to the I vehicle owned by H (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On November 4, 2015, around 15:15, the Defendant: (a) proceeded without sufficiently reducing the speed of the Plaintiff’s vehicle within the Jinwon-gun, Jinwon-gun, Jinwon-gun, Jinwon-gun, Jin-gun, the Jin-gun, the Jin-gun, the Jin-gun, the Jin-gun, the Jin-gun, the Jin-gun, the Jin-gun, the front end of the Plaintiff’s vehicle which was at the stop of the vehicle due to its shock. (b) said, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was pushed back after the Jin-gun (hereinafter “the 1 damaged vehicle”).

Plaintiff

The driver F of the vehicle was bound to speed up to 7 seconds due to the shock, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was sealed with the 1 damaged vehicle and the M vehicle in front of the 1 damaged vehicle (hereinafter “2 damaged vehicle”), and the 1 damaged vehicle was moved to the right side for the 2 damaged vehicle, and the 2 damaged vehicle was moved to the left side for the 1st and 2 damaged vehicle. The 1st and 2 damaged vehicle met each aspect of the 1st and 2 damaged vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

At the time of the instant accident, the driver J, the N of the passenger, and the driver and the O of the passenger in the second damaged vehicle were on board respectively.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 5,139,570 in total to F, who is the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, due to the instant accident (treatment costs and agreement) and claimed KRW 2,554,910 among them.

In addition, the Plaintiff paid KRW 27,704,00 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and KRW 4,989,400 at the repair cost of the second damaged vehicle.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, 5 through 7, 9 through 16, each entry and video of Eul's 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of 100% of the Plaintiff’s driver’s negligence in front of the week, the Defendant is the instant accident.