1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to the A A AH car (hereinafter “Defendant”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to the B AH car (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. At around 16:04 on September 19, 2012, the Defendant’s vehicle: (a) was driving the Defendant’s vehicle into the Kimpo-section of the numberless Maz Vehicle (hereinafter “victim’s vehicle”) driven by C along the three-lanes of the four-lanes of the flow of the point adjacent to the Yanyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Seoyang-gu Yandong, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoul, with the three-lanes of the flow of the road.

(hereinafter referred to as “accident in transit”). (c)

The plaintiff's vehicle driving the three-lane in the same direction is predicted by the defendant's vehicle, which was parked on the front side of the preceding accident, resulting in injury between the defendant's vehicle and the victim's vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

By March 4, 2014, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 22,470,080 with C’s medical expenses, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s primary negligence, and sought payment of KRW 13,482,040, which is 60% of the amount of damages.

The defendant asserts that the decision of the committee for deliberation on disputes over reimbursement of automobile insurance (hereinafter referred to as the "former appellate court") was already final and conclusive, since the ratio of negligence on both sides is 8:2, and the plaintiff's assertion against this is without merit.

3. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 4 and 1 evidence Nos. 4 and 1, the old trial court decided on December 20, 2012 by the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s liability ratio: 8: 2. On March 11, 2014, the Plaintiff sent a written request to the Defendant for exclusion from the obligation of the consideration of compensation disputes on the ground of “a dissenting opinion on the percentage of negligence” and on the same day from the Defendant on the same day.