The part against the plaintiff falling under the amount ordered to be paid under the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the E vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. At around 16:00 on July 31, 2017, C stopped by adding the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the access road to the Plaintiff’s expressway at the end of the end of the port side of the Seoul metropolitan metropolitan circulation Highway, and thereafter, it was going to check the loading on the rear side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and then walk back to the driver’s seat. However, the driver of the Defendant vehicle F, while driving on the access road to the said expressway, C was shocked with the front left side and back part of the Defendant vehicle, and accordingly, C was injured by the left side of the road, such as the upper part of the upper part.

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

From July 31, 2017 to November 17, 2018, the Defendant paid C the sum of KRW 11,545,640,00 for hospital treatment costs and KRW 2,908,940 for hospital treatment costs, and KRW 11,545,640 for hospital treatment costs. From July 31, 2017 to November 17, 2018, C filed a complaint with the Defendant related to the instant accident, and filed a claim with C for the payment of the insurance proceeds.

Accordingly, on November 21, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,200,00 for disability screening materials, ② KRW 848,00 for traffic expenses, ③ KRW 4,410,370 for business suspension, ④ KRW 14,884,676 for lost earnings, ⑤ KRW 5,956,954 for sex future treatment expenses, ⑤ KRW 27,300,00 for lost earnings.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 12, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff 1’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the shocking of C and the Defendant’s driver’s fault ratio should be 40:60,000, when the F, a driver of the Defendant’s vehicle, who is a driver of the Defendant’s vehicle, coming up on the side of the road divided into a white solid line, to board the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

Therefore, the defendant paid to the plaintiff pursuant to Article 682 of the Commercial Act.