1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff ordering payment shall be revoked.

The Defendants shall be jointly and severally.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of this case citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 3 E and the part of the judgment of the court of first instance (specific calculation, decision-making) is examined as follows. Thus, it is acceptable

2. Parts to be dried;

E. In a case where a victim of an unlawful act provided health insurance benefits under the National Health Insurance Act (hereinafter “health insurance”), the National Health Insurance Corporation shall obtain the victim’s damage liability for the perpetrator to the extent of the expenses incurred in providing such benefits (Article 58(1) of the National Health Insurance Act). This is to prevent the victim who received the health insurance benefits from receiving damages again from the perpetrator from receiving double benefit. As such, the damage liability that the National Health Insurance Corporation gains by subrogation of the victim is limited to the damage liability for the same reason as the health insurance benefits out of the total amount

Therefore, in the event that the victim's negligence competes with the occurrence or expansion of damage, the amount of damages that the National Health Insurance Corporation can claim against the perpetrator should be calculated within the limit of the expenses incurred in the insurance benefits to the extent that it offsets the amount of damages arising from the same cause as the health insurance insurance benefits by negligence, not the total damage liability

(see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da206853, Sept. 10, 2015). The victim’s damage claim for the same reason as the insurance benefits paid by the Plaintiff is the amount equivalent to the medical expenses incurred by the instant case. According to each of the statements in Gap, 2, 6 through 9, and 20 through 22 (including each number), it can be acknowledged that the victim spent the same medical expenses as the attached Table while treating the injury suffered by the instant accident.