2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 47,940,00 won with 5% interest per annum from August 10, 2012 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order for payment shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay 25 million won with 5% interest per annum from August 10, 2012 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

Defendant: The part against Defendant in the judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.

2. The part to be mard;

② As to this, the Defendant asserts that the instant accident occurred due to the joint tort between the pipes and the central construction, and that the Plaintiff is also in the position of the insurer of the future pipeline, which is the borrower, the claim for double-insurance can be allowed only for the portion exceeding the amount corresponding to the rate of fault of the future pipeline.

The Defendant’s assertion appears to the purport that the Plaintiff and the Defendant share the amount based on the double insurance premium sharing method with respect to damages arising from the fault ratio of central corporation, and that the Plaintiff should bear the full amount of damages due to the future pipe fault ratio.

However, the Central Corporation, the common insured under Articles 1 and 2 insurance contracts, is liable for the total amount of damages, and both the Plaintiff and the Defendant are liable for payment of the full amount of insurance proceeds under each insurance contract, so double insurance cannot be deemed established as limited to the portion of liability for compensation due to negligence of the Central Insurance, which is the overlapping insured. In addition, Article 725-2 of the Commercial Act and Article 672 (1) of the Commercial Act, which applies mutatis mutandis under the aforementioned provisions, provides that "an insurer shall be held jointly and severally liable within the limit of their respective insured amounts. In this case, the insurer's liability for compensation shall be determined by the ratio of their respective insured amounts." If the Plaintiff, one of the overlapping insurers, has been discharged in excess of its own insurer's liability, the Defendant may exercise the right to indemnity against the portion of the total insurance proceeds paid to the Defendant, who is the remainder of the double insurer pursuant to Article 425 (1) of the Civil Act. Accordingly, if the Defendant's argument on different premise is no longer reasonable (the result of future pipe's contribution to the accident in this case is justified).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in this conclusion, and the plaintiff and the defendant's appeal are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Il-il (Presiding Judge)