1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid additionally shall be revoked.

1. The reasons for the judgment of this court concerning this part of the facts of recognition are as follows: (a) under the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance from 10 to 3 pages are the same as the last part; and (b) under the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Existence and scope of liability for indemnity; and

A. According to the facts of recognition of the existence of the liability for reimbursement, the accident in this case occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle C who concealed the rear part of the defendant vehicle as the front part of the plaintiff vehicle because the accident in this case neglected the duty of front-time care and failed to maintain the distance properly, and the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle C who concealed the rear part of the defendant vehicle as the front part of the vehicle, and if the insurer of the defendant vehicle was in the front part of the vehicle in this shock due to the shock, the deceased who dried the above road on the front part of the vehicle in the front part of the vehicle, and operated a speed device (brac peds) instead of operating the brake (brac peds) of the defendant vehicle due to the negligence on the part of the driver's vehicle in the front part of the vehicle in front of the plaintiff vehicle, and caused the damage to the victim or the insurer of the vehicle in excess of his share due to the shock, the amount corresponding to the compensation for the excess portion can be identified as the joint tortfeasor or the insurer.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da69712 Decided September 24, 2002, and Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53499 Decided December 24, 2009). Accordingly, the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, is liable to compensate for the damage suffered by the Deceased due to the instant accident. Since the Plaintiff, the insurer of one of the joint tortfeasor, who is the insurer of the Plaintiff, was discharged from the obligation of payment by subrogation of the Deceased’s damage as the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Defendant was liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damage incurred by the Deceased in excess of the share of the Plaintiff’s share on the part of the Defendant vehicle.