The plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants are dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The facts as stated in the judgment on the cause of claim (attached Form) do not conflict between the parties, and according to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff acquired the damage claim against the Defendants pursuant to Article 682(1) of the Commercial Act by paying the insured amount of KRW 59,697,000 to the deceased E’s bereaved family on June 5, 2006. Thus, Defendant C and Defendant D, the driver of the Defendant vehicle, are jointly obligated to pay the Plaintiff the damage claim and its delay damages, unless there are special circumstances.

2. As to the determination of the statute of limitations defense, the defendants raised an objection against the statute of limitations defense, and pursuant to Article 682 of the Commercial Act, the insurer who paid the insurance amount in the event of damage caused by the act of a third party shall acquire the rights of the policyholder or the insured against the third party within the limit of the amount paid. Such subrogation by the insurer does not lose identity and transfer it to the insurer as it is without loss of identity. Thus, the period of the statute of limitations defense of the claim acquired by the insurer and its starting point of calculation shall also be determined based on the claim itself against the third party

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da3143 delivered on June 11, 1999, etc.). Meanwhile, a claim for damages arising from a tort ceases by prescription, unless it is exercised within ten years from the date when the tort was committed.

(Article 766(2) and (1) of the Civil Act. The fact that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on October 2, 2019, which was ten years after May 13, 2006, from May 13, 2006, which was the date on which the instant accident occurred, is apparent in the record and the calendar, and thus, the damage claim of this case had already expired before the instant lawsuit was filed.

Therefore, the defendants' defense of extinctive prescription is justified.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.