The judgment below

The part against the defendant is reversed, and the judgment of the first instance corresponding to this part is revoked.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. The Supreme Court precedents holding that an automobile accident insurance is liable for payment of death insurance money, injury insurance money, or ex post facto disability insurance money, etc. as stipulated in the insurance policy when an insurer sustained an injury due to an accident of an insured automobile occurred while the insured owns, uses, and manages the insured automobile. As such, the insurer who paid the insurance money under the automobile accident insurance contract can subrogate the right to the extent that it does not prejudice the insured’s right unless there is an agreement that allows subrogation of the insurer under the proviso of Article 729 of the Commercial Act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da51177 delivered on September 9, 2005, etc.). B.

Examining the record in light of the legal principles of the Supreme Court precedents, in the event that the plaintiff paid the insurance money to the insured in accordance with the automobile injury special clause, the plaintiff acquires the right of the insured to a third party within the scope of the insurance money.

However, in this case where D, the insured, suffered a total of KRW 100,392,32, and was paid KRW 72,545,240 from the Plaintiff due to the instant traffic accident, and did not recover the remainder of KRW 27,850,092, the insured D, even if it was paid in full under the main sentence of Article 3(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, did not recover the liability mutual aid amount of KRW 20,000,000, which the Defendant is obligated to pay under the main sentence of Article 3(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and there is no right to acquire as subrogation in relation to

Nevertheless, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the Plaintiff may subrogate the claim for the mutual aid amount of KRW 7,992,450 against the Defendant of D within the scope of KRW 7,92,450. Such determination by the lower court is earlier.