1. The Defendant’s KRW 71,831,050 as well as 5% per annum from December 29, 2012 to June 12, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. (i) On February 5, 2012, around 06:45, A driven a personal taxi vehicle B (hereinafter “Ma1 vehicle”) and driven a three-lane 323.4 km away from the 3-lane west-gu, Yananannam-gu, Yanananannam-do, at the time of the receipt of the vehicle, the front side of the vehicle B and E (hereinafter “Ma2”) under way, while driving the vehicle along the three-lane Donannam-do.

(hereinafter referred to as “the primary accident”). The vehicles Ma1 caused to the above primary accident to stop on the right side of the road, and Ma2 vehicles stopped in the reverse direction on the two-lanes.

Sheshe followed six to seven minutes after the occurrence of the first accident, F driven G Freight Truck (hereinafter referred to as "Ma3 Vehicle") and proceeded in two lanes, and the front of Ma2 Vehicle was stopped due to the previous accident.

(hereinafter referred to as “the second accident”). The second accident in the above second accident is the first vehicle, and the Ma3 vehicle was stopped in the direction of 9 cc from the first to the third vehicle.

Article 13(1) of the Act on the left-hand side of the vehicle loaded on the Ma3 vehicle, which was stopped over three-lanes from the first vehicle while driving the I vehicle (hereinafter referred to as Ma4 vehicle) in three-lanes from the time of the occurrence of the accident.

The third accident is called ‘the third accident'.

A) The detailed circumstances of each of the above accidents are as shown in the table below, and the particulars of the accident-related persons are as follows. The owner of the vehicle number type car, the insurance company of the driver Y 1 vehicle B car (tax) A, Defendant A, Defendant Ma3, Defendant D C Y Ma3 vehicle G freight truck (cab) G freight truck, Plaintiff Y Ma4 vehicle I car Y (LI car)

B. (i) The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to Ma3 vehicles, and is the insured Mine M&T (hereinafter “luminous”) with respect to the secondary accident and the third accident, the Plaintiff is the insurer who entered into the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to Ma3, at its own repair cost.