1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to pay shall be revoked and that part shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 21:50 on January 27, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along one lane in the vicinity of the Kanyangyang-Eup Airport, which led to the snow slicking path, and the wheels was placed on the side of the opposite lane.

(hereinafter “the instant primary accident”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was stopped as it was, but the Defendant’s vehicle driving the same direction at the time was also coming from the snowway, and the Defendant’s vehicle shocked down the back end of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was boomed more closely on the side of the waterway.

(hereinafter “instant secondary accident”). C.

On March 30, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 24,074,00,000, after deducting KRW 500,000 of the self-paid cost for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 through 7, 9, 10 evidence, Eul's 1 through 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's right to indemnity

A. In light of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned facts found in the fault ratio of the second accident in question and the evidence revealed earlier, namely, the driver of the vehicle in question fluencing the Plaintiff’s vehicle and shocking the Plaintiff’s vehicle while driving the snow on the snowway; and the Plaintiff’s vehicle also stops a snow so that it causes the second accident in this case, such as the occurrence of the instant accident, the collision level, and the degree of damage of the vehicle, etc., the instant second accident in question is deemed to have occurred concurrently with the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle.

The ratio of negligence shall be 10 :90 in light of the overall circumstances as seen earlier.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the facts charged with the Plaintiff’s loss caused by the second accident of this case and the evidence revealed earlier.