2. Of the costs of appeal, the part pertaining to the participation in the appeal shall be the intervenor joining the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s 4.5 tons of large cargo vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to C rocketing car (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

B. Around 18:45 on December 14, 2012, the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Supplementary Intervenor”) driven a vehicle on the part of the Plaintiff on the side of the Defendant, leading the road in front of the protegic acid, in front of the protegic acid, in a protegic acid, to two-lanes of the road bending from the front of the anti-surgic diameter at the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the road, driving the vehicle on the same date and at the same time, the front of the front of the front of the vehicle loaded on the Plaintiff and the rear of the

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

In relation to the instant accident on December 16, 2003, the indemnity payment dispute deliberation committee recognized 70% of the negligence on the part of the Plaintiff, and 30% of the negligence on the part of the Defendant, and accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 607,870 to the Defendant on August 7, 2014, which is 70% of the repair cost on the part of the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Gap evidence 6-8, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. In light of the location, shape, etc. of each damaged part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s side vehicle, it is difficult to see that both vehicles were shocked by the instant accident, and even so, even if so, when considering the fact that the rear part of the right side of the Defendant’s side side is damaged, the instant accident was attributable to the Plaintiff’s side while changing the vehicle due to the Defendant’s side’s fault while changing the vehicle due to the Plaintiff’s side’s fault, and thus, there was no fault of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Thus, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff as part of the repair cost of the Defendant’s side.