1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The Plaintiff

A. The Korean Federation of Passenger Transport Business Act 8.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 1, 201, at around 04:45, at least 04:45, 201, Category 2, Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-ro 2, the front end-ro 31 in front of the Loading Park, at the one-lane 4-lanes in front of the tower 31-lanes, a taxi (hereinafter referred to as “one-lane 1”) was unable to stop rapidly due to a preceding accident and shocked behind the vehicle, while driving C-cab (hereinafter referred to as “second-lane 2”) of the vehicle following the vehicle. On the other hand, D vehicles (hereinafter referred to as “three-dimensional vehicles”) parked again once they stopped at the two-lanes following the accident.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

B was injured by an accident in the instant case, such as an alley dub, etc., and the Plaintiff was an insurer who entered into an industrial accident compensation insurance contract under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act with the Gangwon-do Transportation Corporation, which is the employer of B. The Plaintiff considered the instant accident as an occupational accident, and paid B KRW 24,249,69,690 in total, from around that time to January 15, 2013, KRW 8,967,530 in medical care benefits, temporary layoff benefits, and KRW 15,282,160 in insurance benefits.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant’s Federation of the Passenger Transport Business Association (hereinafter “Defendant Federation”) is an insurer who entered into a mutual aid agreement on a vehicle No. 1, and is Defendant Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

The insurer is the insurer which has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the vehicle No. 3. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, including each number, and Eul's entry into the evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Occurrence of and limitation on liability for damages;

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence revealed prior to the occurrence of the liability for damages, the driver of the vehicle at the time of the instant accident conflicts with the preceding vehicle in violation of the duty to keep the front stop and the duty to keep the safety distance, and the second vehicle driver at the time of the instant accident, and the second vehicle driver at the time of the collision with the vehicle once due to the negligence of violating the duty to keep the front stop and the duty to keep the safety distance.