1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with A and B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the E vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On December 28, 2013, around 13:10 on December 28, 2013, A, a driver of the Plaintiff, was driving in the direction of Seoul along the two-lanes of the Western Coastal Highway, near the area of the tomb road, and the two-lanes in the middle of the parallel line 49.4km along the Western Coastal Expressway, resulting in an accident of shocking the F, which was driven behind C (hereinafter “victim”) that was stopped on the side while driving in the direction of Seoul (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. From March 17, 2014 to July 29, 2015, the Plaintiff paid F totaling KRW 316,54,200 to F with medical expenses and the amount agreed.

On the other hand, on October 27, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Compensation Money Deliberation Committee for deliberation on the instant accident. On November 30, 2015, the Compensation Money Deliberation Committee decided that the negligence ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, Defendant’s vehicle, and damaged vehicle was 60:30:10, and the Defendant paid KRW 94,963,260 to the Plaintiff on December 16, 2015 following the decision of the Compensation Money Deliberation Committee.

On January 25, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a request for retrial, but the Re-Deliberation Committee decided that the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, Defendant’s vehicle, and damaged vehicle was 60:30:10.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 10, Eul evidence 2, 4, and 5 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant accident without taking any safety measure and caused the Defendant’s vehicle stopped in the middle of the two-lanes on the expressway, and thus, the fault ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle is at least 50%.