1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below is revoked.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff is liable for D's joint tort against D's death in the second accident, the plaintiff is liable for D's negligence to the driver of the insured vehicle, since D's negligence causing the second accident, 30% of the driver's negligence, and 30% of the driver's negligence of the second accident, and 60,090,696 won (200,302,320 won x 0.320), each insurance company of the plaintiff vehicle, which acquired the right of subrogation by paying damages to the deceased's heir, are obligated to pay damages to the plaintiff, which is the insurance company of the plaintiff vehicle that acquired the right of subrogation by paying damages to the deceased, according to their respective fault rates.

B. As to this, Defendant Heung-gu Fire asserts to the effect that D had already suffered a fatal injury or died due to the first accident, and that there was no possibility of living after the second accident, and that the third accident had already died at the time of the third accident, even if the living was, shock caused by the third accident did not cause a causal relationship between the third accident and the death of D.

C. Defendant Hyundai Sea asserts to the effect that, even if D had already died due to the primary accident, even if it had been living, D had a low-priced vehicle with D wheels in the second accident, and D merely went into the body subordinate to D, so there is no causation between the second accident and the death of D.

3. Determination as to whether the Defendants’ insured vehicle drivers are jointly liable for tort

A. In light of the above arguments by the parties whether D was living each at the time of the second accident and the third accident, the issue of this case is eventually D's second accident and the second accident.