A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to D Freight Vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant 1”) and E Freight Vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant 2 Vehicles”). When indicated together with Defendant 1’s “Defendant 1”, the Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to each of the aforementioned vehicles.

B. On March 9, 2018, at approximately 23:23:23: (a) the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along the two-lane 4 km along the Southern River, Seogsan Expressway; (b) was driving along the two-lane 4 km prior to the point of accident; and (c) was driving on the side of the road; (d) the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped the vehicle while driving on the road; and (e) the Plaintiff’s driver sent the vehicle with a cell light at a point of about 100 meters after the latter; and (e) the part on the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle where the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped, after which the Plaintiff’s vehicle was parked, sent the Plaintiff’s vehicle with the upper left side of the vehicle where the Plaintiff’s vehicle was parked, and caused an accident that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driven due to the shock of the right shoulder and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was emitted (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On April 24, 2018 and around the 27th day of the same month, the Plaintiff shared insurance proceeds of KRW 44,250,00 (the amount obtained by subtracting the return of remainder, etc.) with the repair cost, etc. of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-7, Eul evidence No. 1-3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. The key issue of the instant case is the ratio of liability between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle that contributed to the instant accident.

(E) The Defendant’s internal share of the Defendant’s vehicle is not an issue in this case, and thus, the joint liability ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle responding to the Plaintiff’s vehicle is considered. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as seen earlier, the liability ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle is 40.