1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The Plaintiff entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with C on the D motor vehicle owned by C (hereinafter “instant Plaintiff”), and the said contract contains a special agreement on the non-insurance motor vehicle injury security.

Defendant B is the owner of the E-vehicle that exclusively purchased liability insurance for malicious damage insurance companies (hereinafter referred to as “instant Defendant vehicle”); Defendant A is the driver of the instant Defendant vehicle, and Defendant B’s child.

At around 12:20 on July 2, 2016, F, a spouse of C, temporarily stopped on the one-lane road located in the Shindong-dong, Young-si, Suwon-si, and at the time of commencement of the right-hand, Defendant A driven the Defendant’s vehicle and followed the vehicle by driving the vehicle, and followed the back part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “the instant accident”). The instant accident was diagnosed by the F, due to the injury of crypoids and tensions, etc., G, who is the Plaintiff’s passenger, was diagnosed by the crypoids and tensions, and by the crypoids and the crypoids, and the crypoids and human stypitiss.

F and G claimed insurance money to the Plaintiff based on the special agreement on indemnity for non-life insurance, and the Plaintiff collected KRW 5,231,390 (the treatment cost of KRW 2,231,390, consolation money, other damages, the future treatment cost of KRW 3,000) and KRW 5,652,900 (the treatment cost of KRW 2,652,90, consolation money, and other damages, the compensation for losses, and the future treatment cost of KRW 3,000, under the pretext of the treatment cost of KRW 3,600,000, out of the insurance amount of KRW 1,60,000, and KRW 972,400, out of the insurance amount of G, from the malicious damage insurance company, which is the liability insurer of the Defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, 16, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above recognition of the liability for damages arising from the determination, Defendant B, the owner of the instant Defendant vehicle, is an operator under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), barring any special circumstance, and Defendant A.