1. The Defendant’s KRW 38,426,820 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from November 28, 2015 to December 15, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to the winter-speed and A bus (hereinafter “Plaintiff-motor vehicle”).

B. On January 24, 2014, the U.S. Armed Forces tried to change the bus lanes into one lane, which is the bus exclusive lanes, while driving a military vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) on the road along the border road located in the Busan-si, Busan-si (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) around January 14:47, 201, and caused the Plaintiff’s accident that caused the injury to the Plaintiff’s passenger who was on the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving along the instant first lane, due to the shock on the front side of the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

Under the above insurance contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 40,173,970 to B among the passengers from March 17, 2014 to November 27, 2015.

The Plaintiff filed a partial claim suit seeking reimbursement against the Defendant with Seoul Central District Court 2014Gaso622495, and received KRW 1,747,150, out of the insurance money paid to B according to the settlement recommendation decision of the above court.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts of recognition as to the Plaintiff’s claim, it is reasonable to deem that the instant accident caused the Defendant’s negligence in breach of the duty of care while changing the vehicle. Since the Plaintiff, the insurer of the Plaintiff, discharged the Defendant by paying KRW 40,173,970 according to the insurance contract, the Plaintiff may exercise the right of indemnity against the Defendant in accordance with the insurer’s subrogation doctrine under Article 682 of the Commercial Act.

B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant’s insurance proceeds paid to B in comparison with other passengers are too large, and considering the fact that B did not put a safety level, the injury gets worse by making the instant accident after the instant accident, and the king evidence, etc.