1. The Defendant’s KRW 26,163,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from December 15, 2015 to July 20, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The pertinent Plaintiff, as an insurer, subscribed to automobile insurance regarding A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) from the next day.

The Defendant, as an insurer, acquired the automobile insurance concerning B vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On April 29, 2015, around 06:31 on April 29, 2015, C used the Plaintiff’s vehicle and used three-lanes among three-lanes of national highways located in Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu.

D Driving the defendant vehicle, which stops in the main direction to enter the national highway No. 3 with the same driving direction as the plaintiff vehicle.

However, D did not discover the Plaintiff’s vehicle and did scam back to the third vehicle without finding it, and had the Plaintiff vehicle scam back to the front part of the Defendant vehicle as long as it did not avoid it.

(B) The Plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged by the front and right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, and on December 14, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 29,70,000,000 as the insurance money.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, or the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the fact of recognition of the occurrence and scope of liability for damages, D, the driver of the Defendant vehicle, has a duty of care to check whether there are other vehicles and people and to safely drive the vehicle in order to prevent the occurrence of accidents by safely driving the vehicle.

Even though it is necessary, the plaintiff's vehicle, which was driving a three-lane of mast while driving a mast in violation of this, was negligent by having the plaintiff's vehicle conceal the back of the defendant's vehicle.

Therefore, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act, the defendant, who is the insurer of the defendant vehicle, is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the owner of the plaintiff vehicle.

However, evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 5.