1. The Defendant’s KRW 16,01,580 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from August 29, 2015 to August 11, 2016.

1. 인정사실 A 덤프트럭(피고와 보험계약, 이하 ‘피고 트�’이라 한다)은 2014. 8. 20. 10:03경 중부내륙고속도로 지선 상행선을 서대구 톨게이트 방면에서 금호분기점 방면으로 편도 5차로 중 2차로로 진행하던 중, 선행 차량이 진로 변경을 위해 서행하자 추돌을 피하기 위하여 1차로로 핸들을 조작하였으나 피하지 못하고 우측 앞 범퍼부분으로 선행 차량의 좌측 뒤 범퍼부분을 충돌한 후, 곧바로 좌측 전면부로 1차로를 진행 중이던 다른 차량의 우측 후면부를 충돌하였다

(hereinafter referred to as “the primary accident”). B high-speed bus (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff bus”) where one lane is in progress, conflicts with the front part of the front part after the left side of the Defendant’s truck loaded on the one lane by an accident (hereinafter referred to as “the second accident”). Upon Defendant’s application, the committee for deliberation on the dispute over automobile insurance opened at the committee for deliberation on the settlement of automobile insurance to determine 60% of the negligence of the Defendant vehicle and 40% of the negligence of the Plaintiff vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “instant decision”). The Plaintiff paid 32,023,160 won to the Defendant, which is 40% of the Defendant’s 80,057,900 won paid to the Plaintiff bus passengers.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to Articles 26 and 28 of the Mutual Agreement on the Deliberation of Claims for Compensation for Automobile Insurance, the Defendant asserts that the instant decision has the same effect as the final and conclusive mediation decision, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no legal interest in the lawsuit. However, although the mutual agreement merely provides for a private agreement, it cannot give the same effect as the final and conclusive mediation decision, the instant safety defense is without merit.

B. We examine the determination of the cause of the claim, as a whole the above evidence, as follows.