1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 40,833,471 with respect to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from September 27, 2017 to October 14, 2020.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. At around 17:00 on September 27, 2017, Nonparty D: (a) carried a female-friendly job offering Plaintiff on his own EK3 car (hereinafter “victim”); and (b) made a left-hand turn to the right-hand turn on the red-off, etc. of the damaged vehicle on the surface of the embankment at the seat of the use in the intersection from the breadth to the intersection of the use in the yellow-off screen, etc., Nonparty D conflict with the front side of the Ftero (hereinafter “victim”) and the left side of the damaged vehicle on the left side of the damaged vehicle.

B. Due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered bodily injury, such as the closure of the upper pet flaver, the damage of the upper pel flag, and the damage of the left pet flag.

C. Defendant B Co., Ltd. is an insurance company that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract for harming vehicles, and Defendant C Co., Ltd. is an insurance company that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract for damaged vehicles.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence No. 1-1 to 10, Evidence No. 1-1 to 13, Evidence No. 1-1 to 13, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the accident in this case is deemed to have caused negligence on the part of the driver of the damaged vehicle and the driver of the damaged vehicle who violated the duty of safe driving. Thus, the defendants are jointly liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident in this case as an insurer of each vehicle, unless there are special

(b) If the operator of a vehicle whose liability is limited permits the winning of the vehicle for the convenience and interest of the passengers without any consideration, and the passenger receives such a provision for his convenience and interest, taking into account various circumstances, such as the purpose of operation, the personal relationship between the passenger and the operator, the background leading up to his/her being accompanied by the vehicle, in particular, the purpose of demanding the boarding and active nature, etc., it is very significant in view of the principle of good faith or equity to impose on the perpetrator the same responsibility as a general traffic accident.