1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to a motor vehicle Anura vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with Bchip vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) with CMW vehicle (hereinafter “CM vehicle”).

B. On September 24, 2016, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driven the two-lanes of the two-lane road of the 33-lane road located in the administrative Ri, in the calculation of the 19:10 square meters, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the Defendant’s front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle followed by driving under the influence of alcohol, took the rear part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle. As the Plaintiff’s vehicle was pusheded, the central drick day of the road, and stopped in the direction of the said one and the two-lane road.

(hereinafter referred to as “the primary accident”). The driver of the vehicle following the vehicle was driving the vehicle after about two minutes in the first accident of this case and the driver of the vehicle following the second vehicle along the two-lanes of the above road while driving along the two-lanes of the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle following the vehicle stopped as above was in front of the left side of the vehicle following the rear side of the vehicle driving.

(hereinafter “instant secondary accident”). C.

On May 16, 2016, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for deliberation on the instant secondary accident, and the Deliberation Committee decided to pay the amount of damages of the subsequent vehicle corresponding to the above fault ratio among the amount the Defendant sought by deeming the negligence ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the subsequent vehicle as 30:70.

After that, on May 26, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 12,872,00 to the Defendant, including KRW 9,972,00, and KRW 2,900,000, to a siren enterprise on October 6, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence No. 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations by the parties and the judgment.