1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. "1." in paragraph (1) of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance;

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract containing special terms and conditions for automobile injury insurance with respect to A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On August 22, 2015, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle on August 16:30, 2015, entered the intersection from the restaurant parking lot located in Pyeongtaek-si C to the third-distance intersection, and driven on the D room, the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was driven on the right side from the right side of the running direction of the Defendant’s vehicle, was shocked from the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”). Accordingly, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, E, and E, and E, the passenger, suffered each injury.

C. By October 23, 2015, the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 2,00,000,000 for E’s agreed money and KRW 1,098,070 for medical expenses, and KRW 1,250,070 for the agreed money of KRW 1,250,00 for the agreed money of KRW 1,652,560 for the medical expenses, and KRW 2,90 for the total amount of KRW 1,652,560 for the medical expenses, according to the terms and conditions of the Automobile Injury Security.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including each number for which there are several numbers), Eul evidence 1 to 4, or the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts 1) The plaintiff is reasonable to 30% of the negligence of the defendant's vehicle that shocked the plaintiff's vehicle that was in a non-protective position. Therefore, the defendant asserts to the effect that the defendant is obligated to claim the amount equivalent to the ratio of negligence of the defendant's vehicle among the insurance proceeds paid to the plaintiff E, the full amount of medical treatment relation expenses under the proviso of Article 3 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and the insurance proceeds paid to F, among the insurance proceeds paid to the plaintiff. 2) As to this, the defendant's accident of this case is the whole negligence of the plaintiff'