1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 1,247,616 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related amount from May 4, 2013 to August 9, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A list of the attached Form as to vehicles B and C owned by the Plaintiff on June 2012 (hereinafter “Affected Vehicle”).

2. Conclusion of an automobile insurance contract with the same content as the entry.

B. The Defendant is the owner of D vehicles equipped with the lifts facilities necessary for towing vehicles after trucks (hereinafter “victim vehicles”).

C. Around 20:00 on May 4, 2013, the Defendant, while stopping a damaged vehicle on a one-lane of the road located in the arrangement for the use of the vehicle in the Nam-nam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Seoul, there was an accident in which the vehicle B driven, caused the shock of the damaged vehicle.

List of detailed accidents in the attached Form

1. The description;

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

Due to the instant accident, after the chieflight of the damaged vehicle, the wheel part of the body frame and the wheel part were damaged, and some towing devices were off.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 8, Eul evidence 1 (including each number), images, the appraisal result of appraiser E, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of and limitation on liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts acknowledged as above, the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of a vehicle operating a harming the sea, and the occurrence of the damage caused by the damaged vehicle.

Therefore, the Plaintiff, who entered into the instant automobile insurance contract with B, has a duty to compensate the Defendant for damages arising from the instant accident.

B. The limitation of liability is reasonable to limit the percentage of the Plaintiff’s liability for property damage to 90% in light of the background of the instant accident, the fair and reasonable apportionment of damages, such as the fact that the Defendant was stopping a damaged vehicle on a one-lane road after sunset, and the Defendant did not take special safety measures in the course of stopping, etc. in light of the concept of the damage compensation system based on the guiding principle.

Although the Plaintiff asserts that the responsibility of the Plaintiff should be limited to 50%, the instant accident occurred by the driver of the Literacy Vehicle.