1. The part against the defendant (consolidated plaintiff) in the principal lawsuit of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the revocation part shall be applicable.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. F, around 19:08 on October 7, 2016, while driving a G Soa car (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”) and driving three-lanes between the three-lanes near the bus stops in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seomun-gu, Seoul, the street points are arranged in the right delivery.

As such, as the two-lanes do not go beyond C, it became to be carried out as it is without viewing it, and as it is, C was to be carried out by the chief offender of the Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.

On October 7, 2016, C died in the emergency room of K Hospital around 19:30 on October 7, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). C.

On November 22, 2016, the deceased’s children H reported the renunciation of inheritance on the deceased’s property by the Seoul Family Court Decision 2016-Ma52279, and was adjudicated on March 10, 2017.

As a result of the renunciation of inheritance, the Plaintiff, who is the mother of the Deceased, independently inherited the deceased’s property.

The defendant is an insurer who has concluded an insurance contract with regard to the defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 9, 10 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 1 and images, the appraiser I's appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant is liable for damages as the insurer of the Defendant vehicle, since the Plaintiff caused the instant accident by negligence by failing to promptly rescue the Deceased, while driving the Defendant vehicle at a relatively short speed, and caused the Deceased to satisfy on another vehicle by negligence, which did not promptly rescue the Deceased, which was used as the instant accident. (2) The Defendant asserts that the instant accident is liable for compensating the Defendant for its damages as the insurer of the Defendant vehicle. The Defendant cannot recognize the predictability or the possibility of avoidance of the accident that occurred by the Deceased, who was in India, going beyond the lane of the Defendant’s own vehicle at night, and the other vehicle after the instant accident, did not have any secondary accident that caused the Deceased.