1. The Defendant’s KRW 37,600,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from October 6, 2015 to August 3, 2019, and the following.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract with the Defendant and E (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) from March 9, 2015 to March 9, 2016 for the period of insurance.

B. In order to borrow KRW 20,000,000 from F around March 12, 2015, the Defendant delivered the instant vehicle as collateral, and failed to return the instant vehicle.

C. On August 21, 2015, the Defendant knew that the instant vehicle was not stolen, but received false theft from the Plaintiff regarding the instant vehicle.

Accordingly, on October 1, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 37,60,000,000, in total, KRW 33,092,013, and KRW 4,507,987 on October 5, 2015, with the insurance proceeds from self-owned vehicle damage under the said automobile insurance contract.

E. As above, the Defendant was convicted of fraud in a criminal case (In Incheon District Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 14910) against the act of deceiving insurance money by deception.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleading

2. In a civil trial, even if it is not bound by the finding of facts in a criminal trial, the fact that a criminal judgment already became final and conclusive on the same factual basis is a flexible evidence, and thus, it cannot be recognized that there is no special circumstance where it is difficult to adopt a factual judgment in a criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial unless it is acknowledged that it is difficult to

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da31453 delivered on January 15, 1993, Supreme Court Decision 96Da9621 delivered on May 28, 1996, etc.). As seen earlier, the Defendant does not have any evidence of special circumstances that are deemed difficult to adopt the final criminal judgment as it is, on the ground that the Defendant was guilty of the fact that the Plaintiff, who was an insurance company, was by deceiving the Plaintiff, thereby deceiving the Plaintiff.