1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Basic facts and

2. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the claim for reimbursement due to a joint tort are the same as the pertinent part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Claim for indemnity based on double insurance; and

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion No. 1 and No. 2 insurance contract are designed to guarantee the insured’s legal liability for damages against a third party, and thus, they are identical in insurable interests and the content and scope of insured events, and fall under the consent insured under the 2 insurance contract, and the insured is also identical in duplicate insurance relationship. As such, the Plaintiff sought reimbursement based on tort against the Defendant, at the same time, to pay double insurance contributions.

B. (i) The term “duplicate insurance” means several insurance contracts are concluded simultaneously or in succession with respect to the same accident as the same subject matter of the same insurance contract, and the total insured amount exceeds the insurable value. If the two liability insurance contracts do not share the subject matter of the insurance, i.e., the insurable interest and the content and scope of the insurance accident, but are overlap with a considerable part of the accident, and the accident constitutes an insured incident related to the overlapping insured interest, such double liability insurance contracts constitute double insurance under Article 725-2 of the Commercial Act to the extent that the insured, insured interest, the insured

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53499 Decided December 24, 2009). In such cases, each insurer shall be jointly and severally liable for compensation according to the ratio of the respective insured amount pursuant to Article 672(1) of the Commercial Act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da65901 Decided January 29, 2014). We examine whether the instant first insurance contract and second insurance contract are identical to the insured.

In the instant case, spam, etc.