1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with A and B Sp-type vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with CM7 vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

D, the driver of the Defendant vehicle, was under the influence of alcohol of 0.08% on October 29, 2012, around 22:30, D, along with the second line, proceeded along the second line on the Cheongju-do 2nd line (hereinafter “the road in this case”), in the Cheongju-do Cheongju-dong, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do Cheongju-dong (hereinafter “the road in this case”), and was moving along the second line on the Cheongju-do Do 2nd line, while the vehicle was moving along the first line on the same direction with the first line on the same road, he received the back side side of the Plaintiff’s right side of the driving vehicle in the same direction along the first line on the same road. Accordingly, the Plaintiff conflict with the opposite line on the front side of the E-motor vehicle in the Maju-do Maju-dong (hereinafter “damaged vehicle”).

(hereinafter “instant traffic accident.” The Defendant paid KRW 115,049,340 as insurance money for the instant traffic accident, and filed a petition for deliberation with the Dispute Resolution Committee on the Compensation for Automobile Insurance Claim (hereinafter “Dispute Resolution Committee”).

On October 19, 2015, the Dispute Deliberation Committee made a decision to deliberate and coordinate the ratio of responsibility of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to 10% and the ratio of liability of Defendant’s vehicle to 90% on the grounds for deliberation of “accident of change of the route, consideration of shock level, and unknown speed of the two vehicles”.

Accordingly, on November 9, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a petition for reexamination with the Dispute Deliberation Committee to the effect that there was no negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle since the Defendant’s driver was under the influence of alcohol, not the career change accident but the post-fluoring accident. On December 14, 2015, the Dispute Deliberation Committee decided to deliberate and coordinate to maintain 10% of the liability ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was previously recognized on December 14,

On December 31, 2015, the Plaintiff is equivalent to 10% of the insurance money that the Defendant paid to the Defendant under the pretext of indemnity.