1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 156,50,000 and 5% per annum from February 21, 2020 to August 11, 2020.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 16, 2019, at around 22:40 on December 16, 2019, Defendant B driven a D Coindo C Vehicle owned by the Defendant C (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) and dried the crosswalk at that place even though it is not a pedestrian signal while driving on the road in front of the Busan Jin-gu, Busan.

F(G birth women) was shocked to death and caused death.

The defendants were married with their domicile at the time of the above accident.

B. The instant vehicle was not covered by mandatory insurance, and H Co., Ltd. entrusted with the government-guaranteed business pursuant to Article 30 of the Guarantee of Automobile Damage Compensation Act paid KRW 156,50,000 to F’s bereaved family members on February 20, 2020.

(c)

On March 2, 2020, the Plaintiff was entrusted by the government with the duty of reimbursement for the government's guarantee business under Article 39 of the Guarantee of Automobile Damage Compensation Act.

【Ground of recognition】 The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1-6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, Defendant B is liable for damages to the victim as the driver of the instant vehicle; Defendant C is liable for damages under the Civil Act; and Defendant C is liable for damages under the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation as the operator of the instant vehicle; and the compensation paid according to the government security business when considering the victim’s age and accident circumstances.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff delayed damages calculated at each rate of 156,50,000 per annum under the Civil Act from February 21, 2020 to August 11, 2020, which is the date of the final delivery of the copy of the instant complaint from February 21, 2020, and 5% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

B. As to the Defendant C’s assertion, the Defendant C merely lent the name of the owner of the vehicle to the Defendant B, who is the husband, and did not have any operational control or any operational profit on the vehicle.

According to the records, Defendant C is above.