1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasons why this court should explain this part of the judgment on the facts of recognition and the claim for damages against Defendant B and C are as stated in the judgment of the first instance, except for the case where the Defendant Matts Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Accident Insurance Co., Ltd.”) was used as the “Defendant Accident Insurance Co., Ltd.” (hereinafter “Defendant Accident Insurance Co., Ltd.”) and the “Defendant Accident Insurance Co., Ltd.” as the “Defendant Accident Insurance Co., Ltd.” under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the Defendant Co., Ltd. was used as the “Nonindicted Accident Insurance Co., Ltd.” under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the claim for the insurance proceeds against the Defendant liability insurance company

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part is as follows: the 10th to 10th to 10th to 17th to 10th to 10th.

Except as mentioned in paragraph (1), the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

B. (1) The part of the damage insurer’s damage insurer’s claim is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract containing a special agreement on accident security with the Plaintiff’s father and the Plaintiff as the insured under the above special agreement, and the insurer paid damages, such as medical expenses, to the Plaintiff according to the above special agreement, and then claims for the payment of the liability insurance amount due to the instant accident to the Defendant liability insurer by subrogation, and the Defendant liability insurer paid KRW 20 million to the non-party accident insurer. Thus, the above amount should be deducted from the insurance amount to be paid by the Defendant liability insurer.

(2) 판단 ㈎ 을가 제2호증의 1, 2의 각 기재에 의하면, 피고 책임보험사가 소외 상해보험사에게 2,000만 원을 지급한 사실이 인정되기는 한다.

㈏ 그러나 을가 제4호증의 기재에 의하면, 원고의 아버지가 소외 상해보험사와 사이에 원고 등을 피보험자로 하여 체결한 자동차보험계약의 무보험자동차 상해담보특약에서 소외...