1. According to the expansion of the purport of the claim by this court, the judgment of the first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer that has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). The Defendant is a traffic police officer C who has sent water signals at the site of the instant traffic accident as seen below.

B. Around 17:50 on December 5, 2010, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was waiting for a police officer C, who controlled traffic on the left side of the proceeding direction, to have the two-lane road in front of the niveter in front of the nives in front of the nives in front of the nives in front of the nives in front of the U.S., in front of the U.S., where the U.S. sign was installed, to receive a signal in order to make a U.S. on the U.S., and the front part of the driver’s seat on the front part of the D driver’s lives in front of the nives in front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “victim’s vehicle”) in front of the nives in front of the nives in front of the driver’s vehicle.

As a result, the driver A of the plaintiff vehicle, D driver of the damaged vehicle, F while on board the damaged vehicle, and G suffered injuries.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident” and D, F, and G are referred to as “victims.”

Until November 28, 2014, the Plaintiff, the insurer of the Plaintiff vehicle, paid the Plaintiff KRW 1,274,600 for medical expenses, KRW 1,625,670 for the victim D for medical expenses and the agreed amount, KRW 2,426,270 for medical expenses and the agreed amount, KRW 1,868,230 for the victim G for medical expenses and the agreed amount, KRW 3,114,00 for the repair of the damaged vehicle, and KRW 14,890 for the professional examination fees.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 and 5 evidence (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking into account the facts charged as above and the evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 6, 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 5 (including paper numbers), and the fact-finding with respect to the government prosecutor's office of this Court, and the whole purport of the arguments.