1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The grounds why the court shall explain this part of the facts of recognition

1. The part of facts of recognition shall be in three pages of the judgment of the first instance; and

The following is added, and the entry in paragraph 1 is identical to that in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of “each entry in subparagraphs B and 3” to the third [based grounds for recognition] of paragraph 8, and such addition is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Supplementary Part】

D. On November 2, 2008, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the insurance premium of KRW 19,228,179, which was the part of the Defendant’s share of KRW 58,267,210, which was paid by the Plaintiff to G by August 22, 2008, and subsequently lost the Plaintiff by filing a lawsuit seeking restitution of unjust enrichment under Seoul Central District Court 2009Dada8965, but the Defendant was finally affirmed by the appellate court (Seoul Central District Court 2009Na17805), on November 12, 2006, after two years from the date of the instant accident, the lower court (Seoul Central District Court 2009Na17805) ordered the Plaintiff to pay the amount equivalent to the share of KRW 10,379,976, excluding the amount equivalent to the share of KRW 8,848,194, and damages

(hereinafter “former”) 2. The assertion and judgment

A. Since a non-life insurance contract, which has the nature as a non-life insurance, along with the nature as an accident insurance, for the cause of the claim, is a non-life insurance contract which has the nature as a non-life insurance. If multiple non-life insurance agreements with respect to one accident are concluded and the total amount of the insurance amount exceeds the amount of the insured's loss, Article 672(1) of the Commercial Act concerning non-life insurance is applied mutatis mutandis, and the insurer is jointly and severally liable within the scope of each insured amount. In such cases, each insurer

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da35516, Nov. 10, 2006). The instant insurance contracts constitute duplicate insurance to which Article 672(1) of the Commercial Act applies mutatis mutandis, and thus, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are limited to each insurance amount.