(b) Examples which contain an error of misapprehending the legal principles concerning the indemnity between joint and several obligors;

(2) Of the part on Plaintiff’s failure in the original judgment, the part on the amount that the Plaintiff paid to the injured party’s passengers is reversed, and that part is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The appeal by the plaintiff as to the part other than the above shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal as to the part shall be borne by the plaintiff.

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the motor vehicle owned by the plaintiff and the defendant, and that the degree of the negligence was the same as that of the driver of the motor vehicle owned by the plaintiff and the defendant, and rejected the evidence as shown above, because there is no error in law by examining the above evidence preparation and the fact-finding based on the records, it cannot be admitted as a premise of the opposing opinion. Based on evidence, the court below recognized the same amount as the judgment of the court below acknowledged for treatment, food, and milk for the purpose of treating the injury suffered from the accident caused by the non-party who is an employee of the plaintiff's accident. In light of the court below's reasoning, it can be known that the above theory such as so-called novel and milk, etc., were merely the expenses for treating the injury in the process of treating the above injury, and therefore, it did not constitute gross negligence as to the plaintiff's employee, and therefore, the court below did not err in finding the plaintiff's gross negligence as to the above accident.

(2) (1) The Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s ground of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the following facts based on the timely evidence, that the plaintiff and the defendant's automobile conflict with each other due to the negligence of the plaintiff's driver and the defendant's automobile. Since the plaintiff damaged the damaged automobile due to such collision, the defendant paid 96,900 won as repair expenses in order to repair the damaged automobile, and the defendant lost profits equivalent to 63,000 won which can be gained between the defendant due to the damage of the above 14-day vehicle, and rejected the evidence inconsistent with the above. Since there is no error of law after examining the records, it cannot be found that there is no error of law, and it conflicts with the above evidence and fact-finding by the plaintiff's driver's negligence, and since the plaintiff suffered damages to each other, Article 496 of the Civil Act is entitled to claim damages against the plaintiff, and even if the plaintiff did not pay the remaining amount of compensation for damages to the plaintiff, the court below's judgment to set off only the amount of compensation for damages against the plaintiff.

(2) The plaintiff's attorney's ground of appeal Nos. 1

The facts acknowledged by the court below are as follows. In other words, since the plaintiff and the defendant's negligence of driving number of motor vehicles owned and operated respectively conflict with each other, three of the plaintiff's passengers aboard the plaintiff's vehicle died. The plaintiff was injured, so 457,655 won was paid independently by the plaintiff to the above victim, and 330,000 won of the insurance money which the plaintiff can receive from the victim's 5th of the accident, and the defendant's negligence of the defendant's driver's 5th of the above 7th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 2th of the 5th of the 2th of the 5th of the 2th of the 2th of the 2th of the 2th of the 2th of the 2th of the 7th of the 7th of the plaintiff's.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)