The costs of appeal shall be borne by each appellant.

(A) According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the traffic accident of this case was caused by the negligence of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who is the driver of the defendant company, and the non-party 3, who is the driver of the defendant company, under the evidence adopted by the court below. After concluding that the plaintiff's side was 7 and the defendant's side was 3, the plaintiff paid 14,914,200 won in total to the non-party 5 and the non-party 32, such as the name of the deceased attached to the judgment of the court below, such as compensation, consolation money, medical expenses, and funeral expenses, as stated in the list of the deceased and the details of the compensation attached to the judgment of the court below, and the facts that the plaintiff paid 7,967,697 won in aggregate as stated in the list of injured persons attached to the judgment of the court below and the details of the compensation for damages, were found to be misunderstanding or misunderstanding the facts that the plaintiff should pay the above amount to the plaintiff.

(B) In addition, the court below held that since the plaintiff's claim of this case was claimed against the victims due to the plaintiff's reasons that the plaintiff paid damages to the victims, its rights cannot be viewed as the exercise of the right to claim compensation by the victim's vicarious exercise of the right to claim compensation by the expiration of the extinctive prescription after the lapse of three years from July 2, 1972, which the plaintiff paid damages, and since there is no other provision in the law as to the extinctive prescription of the right to claim compensation, it is reasonable to interpret that the extinctive prescription expires after the lapse of ten years from the general principle as the time when the right to claim compensation is actually paid to the victims, that is, the time when the right to claim compensation is actually paid to the victims, and therefore the above argument cannot be accepted. According to the court below's aforementioned judgment decision and records, it is obvious that the plaintiff has not yet passed ten years from the time when the plaintiff paid the above recognized amount to the victims after the accident, there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the extinctive prescription due to illegal acts in the above

2. Next, we examine the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff performer.

(A) On April 30, 1974, based on the final judgment of the claim for damages, etc. filed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,145,00,00 that the Defendant incurred separately due to the instant accident on April 30, 1974, and there is no evidence to acknowledge this as to the Plaintiff’s assertion that it would seek reimbursement of KRW 715,000 according to the Defendant’s fault ratio, and as long as the amount is a debt owed by the final judgment against the Defendant as alleged above, it is unfair to include it in the calculation basis of the amount for exercising the right of indemnity as to the Defendant, as it goes against the res judicata itself. Thus, even if the record was determined, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff paid the amount to the Defendant as alleged, and thus, it cannot be accepted in the above judgment of the court below that there was a mistake of facts in violation of the rules of evidence or an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the objective scope of res judicata.

(B) In addition, the court below held that 40,00 won of consolation money paid to Nonparty 6 out of the total sum of KRW 1,638,300, which was paid by the plaintiff to Nonparty 41, etc. after the accident, including Nonparty 4, etc. in the original judgment attached to the attached Form and other expenses disbursement statement attached to the original judgment, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff was the victim of the accident of this case, and the remaining disbursement items cannot be deemed to be a cost in proximate causal relation with the accident of this case or, according to the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the scope of compensation for damages

3. Therefore, each of the appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant is without merit, and each of the appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Hah-hak (Presiding Justice)

Justices Gi-port Port Port Port No. 50