1. Defendant C’s KRW 149,665,956 as well as its annual 5% from July 1, 2017 to July 12, 2018, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was established pursuant to Article 50 of the Trucking Transport Business Act, and entered into a mutual aid agreement for limited liability companies D and E 18 tons of car trucks (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

B. (1) Defendant C is a holder of Fgallonro vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”), and Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) is a business operator operating an insurance business through the conclusion of an insurance contract, such as the comprehensive automobile insurance.

(2) As to Defendant C and the Defendant, Defendant B entered into an automobile insurance contract with the collateral items I, the personal injury II, and the personal injury insurance (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

(3) Under the terms and conditions applicable to the instant insurance contract, the insurer’s damages not covered by the insurance company relating to personal compensation II are stipulated as follows.

[14] Matters that an insurance company does not compensate for (exempt matters)

1. Where he/she does not separate the general exemption from liability, he/she she shall be able to obtain the dicin compensation II:

(e) An employee of the insured who is liable for compensation, who is entitled to receive accident compensation under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act: Provided, That if the damage suffered by the insured exceeds the scope of compensation under the same Act, the excess damage shall be compensated; and

(f) Where the insured uses an insured motor vehicle for his/her business, other employees engaged in the business of the employer who are entitled to receive accident compensation under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act: Provided, That if the loss suffered by the insured exceeds the scope of compensation under the same Act, the excess loss compensation shall be compensated;

C. On January 10, 2012, Defendant C, at around 06:34, with the Defendant’s vehicle, was to work together with H (the chief boarding of the company (J), I, J (hereinafter referred to as “I”), I, H, and J, a worker of the same company (J).