2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. 3/5 of the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff and the remainder by the defendant.

(a) Notwithstanding the fact that Nonparty 1 had no dispute over the establishment of Nonparty 1 and 2, Nonparty 1 to 14 (the insurance proceeds), Nonparty 6’s 3 (the fact of Non-Party 1’s death report), Nonparty 7 through 14 (the fact of death report), Gap’s 4 (the fact of death report), Eul’s 5 (the fact of death report), Eul’s 1 to 4 (the fact of death report), and Eul’s 11 (the fact of witness inspection report) were kept on the left-hand side of the road at the time of the accident, and the fact that Nonparty 2’s above 5’s 6-day driver’s 4-day driver’s 5-day driver’s 7-day driver’s 5-day driver’s 4-day driver’s 5-day driver’s 8-day driver’s 1,000-day driver’s 4-day driver’s 8-day driver’s 1,000-day driver’s 1.

According to the above facts, the accident of this case occurred concurrently with the negligence of the non-party 1, who is the above truck driver, and the non-party 2, who is the above truck driver, the non-party 1's owner and the non-party 1's owner of the above vehicle and the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the victims of the accident of this case. On the other hand, in their internal relations, it is reasonable to view the degree of the negligence contributed to the accident of this case as 70 (the non-party 1) in light of the above circumstances of the accident of this case: 30 (the defendant). Thus, the damage according to the rate of negligence should be shared.

Meanwhile, according to the evidence as seen earlier, the above victims who were on board the above car owned by the Defendant did not wear a safety level attached to the above car. The above victims' negligence also caused the occurrence and expansion of damages caused by the above accident. Therefore, the above negligence should be considered in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated by the non-party company or the defendant, and it is reasonable to 10% of the above victims' negligence ratio in light of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's negligence.

B. Meanwhile, considering the above evidence and the purport of the statement No. 3 No. 12 (A. 10) as to non-party 10 and No. 2's total amount of damages for non-party 10 and No. 2's total amount of damages for non-party 10 and No. 2's total amount of damages for non-party 10 and No. 2's total amount of damages for non-party 10 and No. 2's total amount of damages for non-party 9's damages for non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 19'

C. According to the above facts, the plaintiff paid damages to the victims of the accident of this case on behalf of the non-party company who is the insured pursuant to the above insurance contract, thereby jointly discharging liability to the defendant, who is the quasi-joint and several liability. Thus, according to the insurer subrogation doctrine under Article 682 of the Commercial Act, the plaintiff acquired the right of indemnity against the defendant regarding the part of the above joint immunity amount.

2. Scope of the right of indemnity;

A. As the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff sought reimbursement of KRW 103,568,50 (66,141,379 won + 31,468,500) out of the total amount paid by the Plaintiff on behalf of the said non-party company, which is equivalent to 40% of the remainder after deducting the portion against the Defendant and the non-party 2, which is the negligence ratio of the non-party 2, and thus, examined.

First, it is reasonable to view the apportionment ratio between the non-party company and the defendant as 7:3, as seen earlier (see Supreme Court Decision 91Na8722, Dec. 5, 191; Supreme Court Decision 91Na872, Dec. 5, 1991). However, the non-party 2 appears to include the non-party 2's negligence in failing to wear safety labeling, and it is related to the non-party 2's damages and expansion of damages, and it cannot be deemed that the ratio of liability ratio between the non-party 2 and the defendant's joint tortfeasor is 40% because the non-party 3 or the defendant's fault is not the same as the other joint tortfeasor's fault in calculating the amount of damages that the non-party 1 is the one who is the victim's own fault, but the other joint tortfeasor's liability ratio should not be considered in calculating the amount of damages that the non-party 2 is the one who is the joint tortfeasor's own fault.

C. Accordingly, when calculating the amount of the Plaintiff’s indemnity, the amount that the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff is equivalent to the amount of KRW 15,497,924 and the statutory interest after the date of joint exemption.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the damages for delay at the rate of five percent per annum under the Civil Act from February 14, 1992 to October 7, 1992, which is the date of the final judgment at which it is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute about the existence and scope of the above obligation, as the above amount 15,497,924 won and the above amount of damages for delay after the above joint exemption date. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is dismissed due to the lack of reasons. Since the part against the defendant in the original judgment which partially different conclusions is unfair, the plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed. The defendant's whole costs of the lawsuit shall be dismissed as it is without reason, and it is so decided with the application of Articles 96, 92, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the total costs of the lawsuit [attached Form].

Judges Hong Il-il (Presiding Judge)