1. The Defendant’s KRW 14,060,213 as well as 5% per annum from June 1, 2016 to January 13, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with the B motor vehicle owned by A (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with C (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”).

B. On April 28, 2016, at around 07:50 on April 28, 2016, the respective insurance period of the Plaintiff vehicle and the Defendant vehicle caused a traffic accident where the Plaintiff vehicle (D: the driver) meets the right side of the Defendant vehicle (E) with its front part.

The two intersections, which are the accident place, have a signal apparatus installed, but at the time of the accident, the two vehicle moving direction was on and off at the time of the accident.

C. At the time, the Plaintiff’s vehicle passed through the intersection from the ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic e.g.

The instant accident caused the death of the Network F (hereinafter referred to as “the Republic of Korea”), a back-side passenger of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “the Republic of Korea”).

(B) The above accident is referred to as the “instant accident”). D.

On May 29, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 65,903,560 to the representative G of his/her surviving family on May 29, 2016, by applying the comparative negligence ratio of 30% to the deceased, who is the passenger of the Defendant vehicle, free of charge, and for the failure to wear the safety level. On May 31, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,931,650 to the Plaintiff’s repair cost and paid KRW 68,835,210 in total.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff received KRW 6,590,350 from the Defendant around May 30, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 9, Eul evidence 1 to Eul evidence 7 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the evidence as seen earlier, the driver of the Defendant vehicle did not temporarily reduce the speed or temporarily suspend despite the fact that the signal from the front was yellow at the intersection, which is the place of the accident.