1. B around 15:00 on October 6, 2014, to move steel bars at the construction site at C at the construction site at C, at the time of Si interest.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant leased and used the aircraft, the insured, along with the driver B, from the insured F.

B. At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant, as a contractor and a person in charge of the field management of the construction site, who received a contract for the extension of the factory of the contractor G at the time of the instant accident, ordered B to stop the operation of the mid-term season by giving instructions to B during the transfer of the steel, and went into the bottom of the steel system to be bound by any of the following subparagraphs, and the Defendant suffered an injury on the bridge by the Defendant, with the string of the strings and the strings.

[Evidence: 4-1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. Since the Defendant used the insured motor vehicle from F, a registered insured, to lease and use the insured motor vehicle from F, as well as the insured, at the time of the instant accident, the Defendant is the approved insured as stipulated in Article 7 of the instant Automobile Insurance Clause.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Da68027, Apr. 25, 2000; Supreme Court Decision 94Da56791, Apr. 28, 1995). Therefore, the Plaintiff is not liable to compensate the Defendant for the injury of the Defendant under Class II (Optional Insurance). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim to seek confirmation of the existence of the obligation related thereto is justified.

B. The Plaintiff is recognized to have paid a total of KRW 47,841,180 to the Defendant in excess of KRW 10 million, which is the maximum amount of compensation for personal injury I (liability Insurance), and thus, the difference equivalent to the claim amount should be refunded as unjust enrichment (A 10).

3. The claim for conclusion is reasonable.