1. The plaintiff assistant intervenor's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Intervenor.

purport.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, which includes a non-life-free special agreement on vehicle injury insurance with respect to C, and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor is the employee of the Plaintiff Company, and the Defendant is the owner of D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

B. On December 19:45, 2012, the Defendant driven the Defendant’s vehicle and driven along the two-lane road at a distance of 450 meters from the Jinju-si, the front vehicle, and the front vehicle changed from the first lane to the second two-lane, and the front vehicle discovered the Plaintiff’s Intervenor during the course of the accident management in the first lane and operated the vehicle. However, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor was faced with the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle’s left side (hereinafter “the instant accident”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor suffered injury, such as credit fresh, freshioning of the fresh, freshing of the fresh, and freshing the fresh, etc., which require approximately 15 weeks’ treatment.

C. The Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff’s Intervenor totaling KRW 5,834,380 under the name of medical expenses, etc. from January 4, 2013 to November 18, 2015, in accordance with the special agreement on security for injury against non-insurance vehicles.

【In the absence of dispute, the purport of the entire pleadings, as a result of the commission to send documents to the medical corporation of the first instance court for the medical corporation of the first instance court for the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. (A) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred and limitation 1) was caused by the Defendant’s total fault, as the Defendant’s vehicle was dissatisfyed, and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, an employee of the Plaintiff Company, who was responsible for the management of the accident at the time, was shocked.

B. The defendant's argument is changed from the first lane to the second lane, and the plaintiff's supplementary intervenor is also a second lane.