Of the judgment of the first instance court, the Defendants’ failure in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid has been revoked, and thus, the said part.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with D vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant C is the driver of the vehicle E (hereinafter “Defendant”), and the Defendant B was driving the Defendant vehicle at the time and place specified in B.

B. On May 23, 2017, at the entrance of the F station parking lot in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, around 17:16, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driving along one lane on the two-lane road, and was driving along the two-lanes while moving to the said public parking lot, and subsequently, the Plaintiff’s vehicle continued to drive along the two-lanes, leading to the occurrence of an accident in which the said public parking lot and the G vehicle parked again (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

(c)

From around that time to May 4, 2018, the Plaintiff paid total of KRW 10,756,980 with medical expenses, etc., and recovered KRW 2,400,000 from the responsible insurance company of the Defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In full view of all the circumstances, such as the background of the instant accident, degree of shock and shock, road condition at the time, etc., revealed by the evidence as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view the driver’s fault ratio of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle as 60%: 40% in the instant accident (the driver’s fault ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was unduly circumvented from the first lane of the two lanes), is small.

However, at the time, the Plaintiff’s vehicle runs at a very high speed behind the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle without immediately stopping after conjecting the Defendant’s vehicle, and re-infusing another vehicle with the fence. This cannot be viewed as a cause only prior to the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Plaintiff’s driver’s overwork, operation, etc. can also be considered as a considerable cause). Therefore, the Defendants are the Defendants.