The defendant.

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement on the Plaintiff’s vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), and the Defendant is an insurer that entered into an automobile insurance contract on the Defendant’s vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

B. Around 15:00 on June 7, 2013, the Defendant: (a) was driving in the direction of Seoul along the four-lanes near the IC (hereinafter “first accident”); (b) the vehicle following the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “victim”) was driving in the first place at the location of the first accident; and (c) the vehicle following the Defendant’s vehicle was driving in the direction of Seoul. Since then, the Plaintiff, who was driving in the vehicle following the damaged vehicle, concealed the front part of the damaged vehicle; (d) the vehicle was pushed back after the damaged vehicle; and (e) the vehicle was pushed back to the rear part of the Defendant vehicle while the damaged vehicle was pushed back due to its shock (hereinafter “second accident”).

The second accident caused E and E, a driver of the damaged vehicle, and F, G, and damaged the damaged vehicle and the Defendant vehicle.

From June 18, 2013 to February 2, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,484,180 to E, F, and G medical expenses and agreed upon, and paid KRW 10,292,90,00, such as the repair cost of the damaged vehicle from July 5, 2013 to July 16, 2013. On July 17, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,953,100 to the repair cost of the Defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Gap evidence No. 7, video, purport of whole pleading

2. The parties' arguments and the judgment on them

A. The plaintiff alleged by the party concerned is 50% of the fault ratio of the defendant's vehicle that did not take safety measures to prevent the subsequent accident after the second accident, and the plaintiff paid 19,730,180 won (=4,484,180 won + 10,292,900 won + 4,953,100 won + 10,000 won + 4,953,100 won) with respect to the second accident, and acquired the right to indemnity against the defendant pursuant to the insurer subrogation provision under Article 682 (1) of the Commercial Act. Thus, the defendant acquired the right to indemnity against the defendant.