1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 12,892,540 with respect to the Plaintiff and the period from November 18, 2016 to November 24, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance with a special agreement for accident-free motor vehicle with respect to a non-insurance motor vehicle owned by the Plaintiff with respect to a non-insurance motor vehicle (hereinafter “insured motor vehicle”), and the Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is the owner of a DNA low-priced motor vehicle (hereinafter “insured motor vehicle”), and the Defendant A is the driver of the Maritime Motor Vehicle.

B. On October 26, 2015, Defendant A driven a sea-shielded vehicle at around 30:0:00 on October 26, 2015, in violation of the signal at the distance of Cheongju-si, a considerable range of Cheongju-si, to turn to the left, and shocked the insured vehicle, who was directly directly engaged in the luxurbing room from the reasonable luxical room, in accordance with the Mama-si, in accordance with the signal at Cheongju-si.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). E, an insured vehicle driver due to the instant accident, was treated in F Hospital, etc. at the place of “F Hospital,” by suffering from 11, 12, and 1 of the pressure frame, and damage to the right-hand blag.”

C. In relation to the instant accident, the Plaintiff calculated the amount of non-life insurance premium on the premise that Defendant A’s negligence was 100%, and disbursed the total of KRW 47,706,490, including the medical expenses for E, until November 17, 2016 (i.e., medical expenses of KRW 10,706,490).

E. Meanwhile, until October 24, 2016, the Plaintiff received 34,813,950 won as liability insurance money from Samsung Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., the insurer of the sea vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 8, fact inquiry results on the Chief of the Cheongju Police Station in this Court, purport of whole pleadings

2. Occurrence and scope of liability for damages;

A. According to the above recognition of the liability for damages, since the accident of this case occurred by negligence in violation of the signal by Defendant A, Defendant A as the owner of a sea-going vehicle, and Defendant A as the owner of the sea-going vehicle, jointly suffered damage by E, who is the driver of the insured vehicle due to the accident of this case.