The judgment of the first instance court is modified as follows.

A. Of the instant lawsuit, the claim for reimbursement against Defendant B Co., Ltd.

1. The reasoning for this part of the underlying facts is as follows, except when written or added by the court, and the same part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 3 to No. 5, up to No. 7, up to No. 8) is identical to that of the previous judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

No. 10 and 11 of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as "the cargo insurance contract of this case") was included in the cargo insurance contract of this case as the non-payment of the common loss contribution borne by E.

“The insurance period of the instant cargo insurance contract” was from August 21, 201 to August 24, 2012, 201, and was included in a joint damage security agreement with the effect that the instant cargo insurance contract covers joint damage and salvage expenses incurred in order to prevent losses arising from the instant cargo insurance policy.

“ ..........”

Defendant B is referred to as “Defendant B,” regardless of whether before or after the commencement and completion of the rehabilitation procedure,” the third party judgment of the first instance is against “Defendant B.”

The 6th part of the judgment of the first instance was designated as the 7 and 8th part of the 6th part of the judgment, “The Plaintiff, according to the cargo insurance contract of this case, has prepared and disturbed the payment guarantee of the joint damage contributions to be paid by the E to G as the insurer of this case.

“” shall be added.

The sixth part of the judgment of the first instance is as follows: “In accordance with the Cargo Insurance Contract of this case on January 30, 2015,” “The cargo insurance contract of this case and the aforementioned two)” of the first instance judgment No. 18 and 19 shall be amended to “the cargo insurance contract of this case on February 5, 2015 and the letter of payment guarantee of the port of this case.”

The evidence No. 18 is added to the column of recognition of the conduct No. 7 and No. 8 of the judgment of the first instance.

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that as the insurer of the instant cargo insurance contract, the Plaintiff, as the insurer of the instant cargo insurance contract, received each of the following claims for damages or reimbursement against the Defendants under the following:

Therefore, with respect to Defendant B, the confirmation of the damage compensation or the rehabilitation claim equivalent to the indemnity amount, and with respect to Defendant D, the damage compensation or indemnity amount.