1. The Defendant’s KRW 35,076,445 as well as annual 6% from September 12, 2014 to April 23, 2015, and the next day.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with Nonparty A and B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with Dowon Transport Co., Ltd. and C Bus (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. At around 17:10 on July 30, 2013, the Defendant’s vehicle proceeding to Sari Park Park in the direction of the direction of the direction of the first line, the second line, the second line, and the right side of the road in the Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, and the parallel with the F Village bus that was going ahead of the front bank while returning back to the intersection in order to avoid the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was going to the right side from the center line, and then moving back to the former bank. The collision with the G vehicle that was parked along the same lane while the village bus was pushed down along the same lane due to the shock, with H vehicles, I, J-si, K-motor vehicle, and freight vehicle that turned behind the said village bus in order.

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

In the instant accident, M and 21 others suffered injuries, and the remaining vehicles other than the Plaintiff were destroyed, etc.

As stated in the separate sheet 1-1, 1-2, and 2, the Plaintiff paid the victims totaling KRW 259,140,750, and received KRW 94,498,430 from the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), Gap 5-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. N, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was well aware of the road situation in which the instant accident occurred, and the view was good before sunset, and the point at which the accident occurred ought to be cut down by 5% a gradient and be accelerated into the children’s protection zone. The width of the road on which the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding is larger than that of the Defendant’s vehicle, and thus, the Plaintiff’s vehicle has priority over the Plaintiff’s vehicle.