1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with B (the victim C of the instant accident as seen below).

According to the terms and conditions of the above insurance contract, where the insured's parents are involved in an accident caused by the non-insurance motor vehicle, the plaintiff should compensate for the damage caused by the accident.

B. On January 22, 2014, at around 06:00, the Defendant neglected his/her duty of front-time watch while driving in the second line of the two-lane road in front of the G cafeteria located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”), thereby taking the Handcar in front of the front line as Defendant vehicle, and shocking off the said Handcar with C, which was towing the said Handcar before and behind (hereinafter “instant accident”), and thereby, C suffered injury, such as a florry and salt flort, and D incurred injury, such as a florry and salt flort.

C. In accordance with the automobile insurance contract with B, the Plaintiff paid KRW 9,508,760,00 as shown in the separate sheet, from April 17, 2014 to May 20, 2016, to D with the medical expenses incurred from the instant accident. The Plaintiff returned KRW 1,922,130,00 from the Dongbu Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., which is the liability insurer of the Defendant vehicle, with the liability insurance proceeds on September 24, 2014.

The Defendant was indicted for violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Act No. 2014Ga420) in the instant accident, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence for one year from the court on July 3, 2014, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter referred to as “related criminal case”). [Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2, significant fact in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts, the defendant's negligence of violating the duty of Jeonju City, thereby causing injury to D, and thus, the defendant is liable to compensate D for damage caused by the accident of this case. The plaintiff is liable to D.