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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Plaintiff’s vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”). The Defendant is an insurer that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the Defendant with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”); Samsung Fire Sea is an insurer that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the vehicle C (hereinafter “Nonindicted Vehicle”).

B. Around 19:40 on December 26, 2016, the Defendant’s vehicle: (a) tried to change the vehicle’s line to the right side while driving ahead of the two-lanes near the area D in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, from the right side to the port side; (b) tried to change the vehicle’s line to the right side; (c) returned back to the two-lane; and (d) thereafter, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving into the two-lanes depending on the Defendant’s vehicle was shocked (hereinafter “the first accident”); and (c) the Nonparty’s vehicle driving into the two-lanes depending on the Plaintiff’s vehicle shocked the rear of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “the second accident”).

On February 28, 2017, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 2,593,00 in total with the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the second accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, 8 through 10, 11, Eul evidence 1 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The primary accident occurred due to the negligence by the Defendant’s driver on the part of violating the duty of safe driving and the duty of prohibition of change of course, and the secondary accident occurred due to the negligence by the Nonparty’s driver on the part of violating the duty of safe driving and the duty of prohibition of change of course, and thus, the drivers of each of the above vehicles constituted joint tortfeasors. The Plaintiff paid KRW 2,593,00 (one million for self-payment) to the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s front part of the vehicle due to the primary and secondary accident, thereby acquiring the damage claim against the Defendant’s Defendant’s driver on the part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Nonparty’s driver on the part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which is the insurer