1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurance company that entered into an automobile liability insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. At around 14:45 on May 24, 2015, E: (a) driven the Defendant’s vehicle, and then entered the TW-type Intersection near the “W-type bus bus stops in writing” and made a left-hand turn from the margin on the left-hand side of the maw-do-gun, conflict with the Plaintiff’s vehicle directly left-hand from the margin-hand on the right-hand side of the maw-area.

The Defendant’s vehicle conflict with the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and transferred it to the left-hand side on the opposite side of the road, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle conflict with the Defendant’s vehicle and re-convened with Nonparty F, who was directly engaged in the opposite part of the Mad Road beyond the center line, as it is after the collision with the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

G, as his spouse, was killed on the same day as in the instant accident, was in operation other than an diversous surgery, instead of an diversative surgery, by suffering from the injury of “a diverse flasing flasing, flasing four or more flasings, including a flasing flasing flas, which had no open address in the chest River

From July 8, 2015 to September 18, 2017, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 31,165,550 to medical institutions for medical treatment, and paid KRW 17,00,000 directly to G on July 26, 2017, and paid KRW 48,165,550 in total.

E. G, H, I, and J, the heir of E, asserted the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver on the instant accident, and filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, including consolation money, against the Seoul Southern District Court 2015da56257. The appellate court (Seoul Southern District Court 2016Na63970) determined that the fault ratio of the instant accident was 35% on the Plaintiff’s vehicle and 65% on the Defendant’s vehicle. The appellate court’s judgment was the same.