1. Based on the Defendant’s decision on performance recommendation for the Daejeon District Court case No. 2016Gaso68742 against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 26, 2016, around 01:20 on August 26, 2016, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “the Intervenor”) stopped Csi (hereinafter “Defendant taxi”) on the private distance near the EPC located in Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, and waiting for a customer. However, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol, while driving on the day and waiting for a customer. The Plaintiff was driving on the front side of the Defendant taxi to stop the departure of Defendant taxi.

The intervenor did not recognize that the plaintiff was seated in front of the defendant taxi, and started the defendant vehicle as it is and shocked the plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

The Defendant, who entered into a mutual aid agreement with Defendant taxi, paid the Plaintiff KRW 45,010,00 in total, KRW 146,310 on September 30, 2016, and KRW 308,70 on October 21, 2016.

C. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the return of the amount equivalent to the provisional payment, asserting that the instant accident was caused by the Plaintiff’s total negligence, as Daejeon District Court 2016 Ghana68742.

On November 7, 2016, the above court rendered a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “the decision on performance recommendation of this case”) with the purport that “the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 45,010 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from October 22, 2016 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment” (hereinafter “the decision on performance recommendation of this case”). The above decision became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 2 (including virtual numbers, if any) or video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted by the parties. The instant accident occurred by the Intervenor’s failure to fulfill his duty to return the said provisional payment to the Defendant due to the failure of the Intervenor to return the said provisional payment to the Defendant prior to the departure of Defendant taxi. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the instant decision of performance recommendation is enforced.