1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”) as the insured, and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. Around 17:50 on March 25, 2014, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle in front of Pyeongtaek-si D, the Defendant’s vehicle was running along three lanes from the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the third-lane, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was waiting for the Plaintiff’s vehicle while driving in the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

By November 5, 2014, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,614,400 to the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 8 (including each number), Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, as the Plaintiff is exempted from liability for damages due to the payment of insurance money as above, the Plaintiff acquired the Defendant’s right to claim damages against a third party pursuant to Article 682 of the Commercial Act within the scope of the insurance amount that the Defendant paid.

B. On the other hand, as seen above, the instant accident is due to the fact that the Defendant’s vehicle, while driving along the three-lanes from the front section of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driving along the three-lanes on the road along which the median line is marked off, and that the instant accident occurred due to the shock of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while driving along the three-lanes on the front section of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, it is reasonable to view the fault ratio between the Plaintiff’s driver and the Defendant’s driver as 10:90.

C. Therefore, the defendant is liable to the plaintiff, and KRW 1,452,960 corresponding to the defendant's ratio of liability among the insurance proceeds paid by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case = 1,614.