1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 110,520 against the Plaintiff and its related amount from December 27, 2016 to December 7, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with A for his/her own B vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with C for D vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On December 14, 2016, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was stopped on the road near the F located in the Y in the following City: (a) the Defendant’s vehicle, which was proceeding in the opposite part, did not confirm the Plaintiff’s vehicle properly; and (b) the vehicle driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle without checking the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

C. On December 26, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 184,200 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to G.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence and scope of the right of indemnity;

A. According to the occurrence of liability for damages and the recognition of the above limitation, the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s neglect of the duty of front-time care.

Therefore, the defendant, who is the insurer of the defendant's vehicle, has a duty to compensate for the damage suffered by A, the owner of the plaintiff's vehicle.

However, the plaintiff's vehicle also stops in a place other than the parking and stopping zone, and obstructed the traffic of the vehicle driving on the one-lane road without a median line, and it is necessary to start safely by checking well the front and rear left, but there is a negligence of finding in advance the defendant's vehicle driving on the opposite part and trying to enter the center of the road, and also contributed to the occurrence of the accident of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's liability is limited to 60% by taking this into account.

B. The fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 184,200 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was generated and the scope of the right to indemnity was as seen earlier, and thus, the Defendant exempted the Defendant from the liability for damages against A.

Therefore, the defendant is 60% of the insurance money paid to the plaintiff.