A. The following traffic accidents occurred between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”), which subscribed to the Plaintiff’s comprehensive motor vehicle insurance policy (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) related to the D Car Engines, insured by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”).

1) On April 17, 2016, at around 00:45, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving the three-lanes on the G SpP vehicle in the G SP vehicle driving ahead of the front driver’s length, while driving the three-lanes on the GpP vehicle in the direction of Busan. The impact of the Plaintiff’s vehicle stops beyond one lane and the FP vehicle stops in four-lanes (hereinafter “the instant primary accident”).

2) Accordingly, the Defendant’s Defendant’s vehicle driving at H’s speed of about 91 to 100 kilometers each speed of the border road, where the F had been driving at a speed of about 3 weeks, caused the injury to the brain bed, which requires a medical treatment of approximately 3 weeks. (2) The Defendant’s vehicle stopped at the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that stops at a speed of 91 to 100km each other, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle stops at the right side of the right side of the road; (3) the Plaintiff’s vehicle was pushed down and stopped toward the right side of the road.

(3) The J SP vehicle of the I driving who driven the four-lanes on the GV Highway (hereinafter “instant secondary accident”) led the driver E of the Plaintiff, who was driving on the said five-lanes on the front part of the vehicle while avoiding the FV vehicle that stopped on the four-lanes, and was driving on the said five-lanes on the front part (hereinafter “instant three-lane accident”).

4) During the instant 1 and 2 accidents, the Plaintiff’s winners of the vehicle (hereinafter “victim”) suffered approximately eight weeks of treatment, i.e., the right side bed and the right side bed down, etc.

B. After the Defendant paid insurance money to the victim KRW 336,306,590, the Defendant filed an application for deliberation on the dispute of indemnity seeking reimbursement against the Plaintiff by asserting that the secondary accident of this case was 100% on the part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.