1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, except for the determination of the Plaintiff’s assertion emphasized or added by this court as to the assertion that the Plaintiff added, as set forth in paragraph 2, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (including the part claiming that the Plaintiff was negligent by Crain driver I).

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s comprehensive automobile insurance contract that the Defendant entered into with respect to the instant scrap (hereinafter “instant Defendant insurance contract”) was in a double insurance relationship with the Plaintiff’s user liability insurance contract (hereinafter “instant Plaintiff insurance contract”) under Article 725-2 of the Commercial Act, and the Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for double insurance reimbursement calculated in proportion to the Defendant’s insurance amount.

B. 1) Determination of the relevant legal doctrine refers to a case where several insurance contracts are concluded simultaneously or in succession with respect to the same accident as the purpose of the same insurance contract, and the total insured amount exceeds the insurable value. If the two liability insurance contracts do not share the purpose of the two insurance contracts, i.e., the insured interest and the content and scope of the insurance accident, but are overlap with a considerable part of the accident, and if the accident involved in the overlapping insured interest falls under the overlapping accident, the subscription to the two liability insurance contracts constitutes double insurance under Article 725-2 of the Commercial Act to the extent that the insured, the insured interest and the insurance accident and the insurance period overlap (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53499, Dec. 24, 2009). In this case, each insurer is jointly and severally liable for compensation in proportion to the respective insured amount under Article 672(1) of the Commercial Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da65901, Jan. 29, 2014).