1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The succeeding intervenor of Defendant D Co., Ltd. is 20,161.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with F and G Liber (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) with respect to the insurance period from February 28, 2012 to May 28, 2013. The said contract includes an injury security agreement under which H, a F’s child, suffers injury by an uninsured car (hereinafter “non-insurance special agreement”).

On the other hand, D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with Defendant C with respect to the I Costex (hereinafter “Defendant”) and the co-defendant B (hereinafter “B”) of the first instance court is the husband of Defendant C.

B. On March 27, 2013, B driven the Defendant vehicle with blood alcohol content of 0.278% without a car driver’s license on March 27, 2013, while driving the Defendant vehicle and driving it on the opposite lane of the Plaintiff vehicle driven by H in the opposite lane due to negligence near the central line, while driving the yellow solid line at the middle line in the Seoyang-do Transfer Ri, Seoyang-do, Seoyang-do., the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven by H in the opposite lane.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). Due to the instant accident, H suffered from the injury of sub-chapters and sub-chapters that require six weeks’ medical treatment.

C. H demanded the payment of insurance proceeds for the damage caused by the instant accident to D, the insurer of the Defendant vehicle. However, D claimed exemption from liability pursuant to Article 2 of the Personal Compensation Act on December 31, 2013 on the ground that Defendant C, the named insured, driven the Defendant vehicle with no license with the explicit implied approval of Defendant C, and caused the accident, and paid to the Plaintiff only KRW 2,400,000 (i.e., medical expenses KRW 467,631, KRW 1,932,369).

As a result, the defendant vehicle falls under the "non-insurance vehicle" under the standard terms and conditions of automobile insurance.

The plaintiff on March 2013 according to the non-insurance contract.