The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the following facts are revealed.

The defendant is driving a passenger vehicle at around 08:00 on September 23, 2012.

The plaintiff caused an accident that leads to the shock of the ozone on the front road of the Eart in Jeonnam.

The Plaintiff suffered from the injury caused by the accident at the right right end of the said accident, such as abandonment and simple pulverization, and received treatment by undergoing two surgerys at H Hospital and being hospitalized for a long time in I Hospital.

B. L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”) which is the insurer of the Plaintiff Obba (hereinafter “L”) paid insurance proceeds in accordance with a non-insurance accident security agreement, and received KRW 20 million from J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “J”) and KRW 3,682,540 from K (hereinafter “K before mutual change”).

Since then, at the request of K, the defendant paid 3 million won to K.

2.(a)

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the defendant's liability for damages was limited to 85%, and that the defendant's liability should be deducted from the criminal agreement amount paid by the defendant among property damage and consolation money, but the insurance amount paid by J and K should also be deducted for L, for the following reasons.

The insurance money that J and K paid to L shall be paid for the medical expenses of the plaintiff to the relevant medical care hospital as L insurance money, and shall be reimbursed by J and K within the limits of such payment, and no claim is filed in this case with respect to the above medical expenses paid by the plaintiff.

Therefore, the above money is not a benefit to be deducted from the damages that the defendant should compensate for to the plaintiff.

B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court’s conclusion is correct, as long as the Plaintiff did not double claim medical expenses paid as above.

The judgment of the court below is contrary to logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.