1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 6,283,917 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from November 1, 2017 to November 13, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid operator who has entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to the automobile D (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On October 14, 2015, around 07:58, in the vicinity of the IC due to the unification of the first direction into the outer cycle of the Goyang-gu Mayang-gu, Goyangyang-si, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked with the Defendant’s vehicle running directly into the four-lane course while entering the port beyond the double-string line, which is the section prohibited from entry, and led to an accident corresponding to the other vehicles running directly in the direction of the course (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. From the occurrence of the instant accident to October 30, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 70,231,950 in total, including the medical expenses, etc. for E, other vehicle drivers or passengers, who are the Plaintiff’s driver, or for F, G, H, I, and J, a driver of the instant accident, with the insurance proceeds of the instant accident, and the detailed details are as follows.

(1) F: 3,842,50 won (the treatment cost of KRW 1,842,550, the agreed amount of KRW 2,00,00) (2) G: 49,71,550 won (the treatment cost of KRW 7,556,070, the agreed amount of KRW 42,00,000, and other KRW 155,480): 3 H: 1,104,960 (the treatment cost of KRW 104,960, the agreed amount of KRW 1,00,00,000) (4), 1,151,230 won (the treatment cost of KRW 151,230, the agreed amount of KRW 1,00,000,000), and 7,197,460 (the treatment cost of KRW 2,184,00,00,000), 15,005 won (the agreed amount of KRW

D. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff requested the K Committee to deliberate on the damage caused by the instant accident.

On October 17, 2016, K Committee decided to re-examine that the ratio of negligence between the driver of the plaintiff vehicle and the driver of the defendant vehicle is about 90% and about 10%.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number, if any) or video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence examined earlier, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is the Plaintiff’s vehicle.