1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

(b).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract, including a special agreement on indemnity for an insured motor vehicle in lieu of a person liable for damage, where the insured person and his/her family members suffered an injury by an insured motor vehicle with respect to the E-owned F motor vehicle, whose father is D.

B. On June 11, 2017, around 05:50 on June 11, 2017, Defendant B: (a) driven by Defendant C’s G Obane (hereinafter “Defendant Obane”) with the victim D on the lower part of the lower part of G Obane owned by the Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant Obane”); and (b) led to the collision of the two vehicles, which had been driven by the central line, and stopped in the atmosphere of the signal at the intersection near 121, Seongdong-gu, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, with the course of bypassing to the opposite intersection of sexual intercourse.

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

D was injured due to the instant accident, such as the blood transfusion from friendly ties, the euthanan fever, etc. D.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 47,145,560 as insurance proceeds (hereinafter “instant insurance proceeds”) from July 28, 2017 to May 30, 2018, for damages, such as medical expenses, etc. incurred by D due to the instant accident based on the foregoing non-insurance accident warranty, and returned KRW 26,00,000 from H Co., Ltd.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff agreed to obtain the right of the insured against third party in the event of paying the insurance money to the insured, etc. with the special agreement on the warranty for non-insurance.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, testimony of witness D of the first instance court, fact inquiry results of the Seoul East Police Station of the first instance court and H Co., Ltd., the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant Eul was injured due to the operation of the defendant Oral Ba, and thus, the defendant Eul was a tort, and the defendant Eul was an operator of Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and the defendant Eul sustained D due to the accident in this case.