A. Basic facts 1) The Plaintiff’s D vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”)

Defendant is the owner of the designated vehicle C and E (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”).

2) As to the automobile insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”)

(2) At around 21:40 on July 18, 2015, 2015, the designated parties C did not secure the safety distance from the monthly transition distance to the Jincheon-dong Southern Yan-do, which was driven by the Defendant vehicle, and proceeded with the part concerning the back part of the Plaintiff vehicle which stopped before the same direction (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

3) The instant accident destroyed the lower part of the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments

B. Determination 1) The legal nature of the victim’s direct right to claim pursuant to Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act is the right to claim compensation against the insurer as the insurer takes over the insurer’s liability for damages against the insured’s victim. In the event an underwriter takes over upon the obligor’s request in the overlapping assumption of an obligation, the obligor and the underwriter are jointly and severally liable with the obligor. As such, the insurer’s assumption of obligation is made upon the insured’s request (insurance Contract or mutual aid contract) and the insurer’s liability for damages is jointly and severally liable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da53754, Oct. 28, 2010). In light of the specific legal principles of determination, in light of the foregoing, the instant case is an insurer who concurrently assumes the obligor’s liability for damages pursuant to the instant insurance contract, and thus, the Defendant, the insurer, and the insured.