2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with C on the D vehicle owned by C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract on the E vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On January 20, 2015, as the Olympic Games around 18:30 on January 20, 2015, the Plaintiff’s vehicle has changed from the two lanes to the one lane in the two lanes between the three lanes in the south of the Yong-dong Intersection.

The back part of the previous damaged vehicle(F) was shocked (hereinafter “the primary accident”), and the Defendant’s vehicle following the Plaintiff’s vehicle was concealed (hereinafter “the second accident”).

C. The Plaintiff suffered injuries from G while on board the damaged vehicle, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 187,263,660 of the insurance proceeds from January 26, 2015 to March 31, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap 1, 2, and 5 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff asserted that, after the first accident, the second accident was caused by the Defendant’s vehicle stopped by the Defendant’s vehicle, and due to the shock, the Plaintiff’s vehicle re-intakes the damaged vehicle, and thereby, the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff money equivalent to the ratio of the Defendant’s fault to the Plaintiff’s driver’s compensation, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s negligence and the Defendant’s negligence, which failed to secure the safety distance, caused damage to the G by the competition between the Plaintiff’s driver’s negligence and the Defendant’s negligence.

In light of the results of the appraisal commission for H and I, an appraiser, a corporation, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s vehicle had re-exploded the damaged vehicle after the second accident. Rather, according to the results of the appraisal commission for H and I, the Plaintiff’s vehicle after the second accident.