1. The defendant's appeal and the request for return of provisional payment are all dismissed.

2. Expenses for filing an appeal, and those for filing an application for the return of provisional payments.

1.The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in each entry or image of Gap evidence of Nos. 1 through 8 (for each number, the number shall be sold; hereinafter the same shall apply) by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings:

With respect to A bus (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”), the Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to B-si (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”).

B. On September 21, 2012, the Defendant driver of the instant vehicle: (a) driven the Defendant vehicle along the intersection prior to the distance of the construction culture in the Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant intersection”); (b) driven the Defendant vehicle along the two-lane two-lane radius from the erode distance from the erode distance to the erogate; and (c) stopped immediately after passing through the instant intersection to allow taxi passengers to board the taxi.

Accordingly, as a result, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who was driving along the same lane in the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle, was rapidly driven in order to avoid a collision with the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Plaintiff’s passenger C, D, E, F, and G (hereinafter “the victims of this case”) exceeded within the vehicle and suffered an injury, such as cindles, spane fever, spane fever, etc.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). C.

Until December 19, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 65,255,260 to the victims of the instant accident.

2. Assertion and determination

A. The plaintiff 1's assertion that the accident in this case occurred when the driver's negligence of the plaintiff 1 and the driver's negligence of the defendant 1 who was driven by the plaintiff 1 while driving the defendant 1, the front vehicle, without any inevitable reason, for the purpose of giving passengers aboard. It is reasonable to view that the ratio of the driver's negligence of the plaintiff 1 and the driver's negligence of the defendant 1

Therefore, the plaintiff is out of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, who is the insurer of the defendant vehicle.