1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the money ordered to be paid under the following subparagraphs shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”). Defendant B is the driver of the Defendant E vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”), and the Defendant C Limited is the owner of the Defendant vehicle and the corporation operating the taxi transport business.

B. On August 8, 2018, at around 21:20, the Defendant’s vehicle driven a road ahead of the SK Telecom distance located in the Suwon Mine-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City, and shocked the backer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was stopped, with the fronter of the Defendant’s vehicle, in order to circumvent it from the fronter of the same direction, and due to the shock, the Defendant’s vehicle suffered injury, such as the F, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, such as the erode of the erode and tension

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

By September 20, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 966,00 for the repair cost of Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, and KRW 1,885,680 for F’s medical treatment costs and agreed amount, and KRW 2,851,680 for insurance proceeds.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 9 through 16, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the occurrence of the liability for reimbursement, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay the said amount to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff could not comply with the claim for indemnity of this case because the Plaintiff paid the insurance money to the extent that the F would need medical treatment due to the instant accident, even though there was a very low probability that the Defendants suffered injury due to the instant accident, and thus, the Plaintiff could not accept the claim for indemnity of this case. However, considering the overall purport of the evidence and arguments as seen earlier, the following circumstances, namely, F was diagnosed that there was a need for a stable price for two weeks immediately after the instant accident, and the traffic accident analysis report prepared by G and H by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation and Research Institute G, and H, the effective collision rate of the Plaintiff’s vehicle before and after the instant accident is below 4km/h.