1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a livelihood security business entity entrusted by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport with the business of guaranteeing motor vehicle accident compensation under Article 30(1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (hereinafter “Motor Vehicle Liability Act”) pursuant to Article 45(1) of the same Act, and the Defendant is the owner of Datoba (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. At around 10:40 on April 3, 2009, B driven the Defendant’s vehicle, which was not covered by liability insurance, and changed the two lanes from the three-lanes in the middle of the Gyeongdong-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul to the one-lane of the vehicle in the direction of the distance of the next hospital in the middle of the ladon apartment, and the two-lanes conflict with the front wheels of the D Driving No. Mabio (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

In the instant accident, D suffered injuries in the framework of the third step, which requires approximately eight weeks of medical treatment.

The Plaintiff received a claim for the payment of compensation for damage on the ground that the Defendant is an uninsurance vehicle, and paid a total of KRW 5,390,240 to D as the Guarantee Business Operator of Automobile Accident Compensation by April 26, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the accident of this case is deemed to have been caused by the negligence of the Defendant’s driver who altered the vehicle line in an unreasonable manner. Thus, the Defendant, the owner of the Defendant’s vehicle, is liable for the above damages pursuant to Article 3 of the Automobile Loss Act, barring any special circumstance, and the Plaintiff may exercise the right to claim damages against the Defendant against D within the scope of compensation paid to the Defendant pursuant to Articles 45(1)4 and 39(1) of the Automobile Loss Act.

Therefore, the defendant jointly with the plaintiff B and sought the above 5,390,240 won and the plaintiff.