1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. From March 21, 2015 to April 29, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 592,00 to the Plaintiff as well as to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with Nonparty A and B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) with respect to Nonparty C’s D Cargo Vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to Nonparty C’s D Freight Vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. At around 14:20 on August 12, 2014, C driven the Defendant’s vehicle, and driven the 11km point on the expressway on the street on the Nowon-ri Civil Aviation, along the one-lane between the two-lanes of the petition and the one-lane between the two-lanes, at the time of stopping on the road road repair work (hereinafter “instant construction work”), the lower part of the part on the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was parked on the front side of the Defendant’s left side.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

The Defendant paid KRW 5,920,000 insurance money for damages caused by the instant accident to C, and thereafter filed a claim with the indemnity payment deliberation committee comprised of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s insurance companies pursuant to the “Mutual Agreement on the Deliberation on the Settlement of Motor Vehicle Insurance Claims” concluded by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, to the effect that the Defendant will deliberate on the amount that the Defendant can claim to the Plaintiff, taking into account the negligence ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle

According to the above claim, on December 22, 2014 and March 9, 2015, the indemnity deliberation committee set the amount that the Defendant could claim to the Plaintiff as KRW 592,00 (=5,920,000 + 10%) by deeming the ratio of the Plaintiff’s fault to the instant accident as 10%.

E. According to the above decision, on March 20, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 592,000 to the Defendant.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s alleged vehicle complies with the safety measures stipulated in the Road Traffic Management Guidelines (Issuance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport) and participated in the instant construction as a work-protection automobile.

Nevertheless, it is not possible.