1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the underlying facts and the occurrence of the liability for reimbursement are as follows. The "Defendant D" in the table (section 3) No. 1-A-4 of the judgment of the court of the first instance as "D", "Defendant C" as "C", and "The plaintiff paid damages to the victims of the second and third accidents" in Article 1-B (No. 4th 2-4 of the judgment of the court of the first instance as the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to vehicles 1-3, and the damages paid to the victims of the second and third accidents shall be within the reasonable scope of the damages suffered by the second and third accidents, and the plaintiff paid damages or indemnity as follows with respect to the second and third accidents related to vehicles 1-B (section 4 of the judgment of the court of the first instance as follows." The plaintiff paid 70% of the negligence at the scene of the judgment of the first and second instance as stated in the table (section 4) of Article 1-2 of the Civil Procedure Act as the judgment of the first and the second judgment.

2. The part to be mard;

나. 구상채무의 범위 ⑴ 2, 3차 사고로 인한 #3 차량의 손괴 ㈎ #1, 3, 4 차량 운전자의 과실이 경합하여 2, 3차 사고가 발생하여 #3 차량이 손괴된 사실, 원고가 #3 차량의 소유자인 대광에게 수리비로 3,970,000원을 지급한 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같고, 원고는 #3 차량의 보험자로서 #3 차량의 손괴에 따른 보험금을 지급함으로써 보험자대위의 법리에 의하여 #3 차량 소유자의 공동불법행위자들에 대한 손해배상채권을 대위취득하는바, 1, 2, 3차 사고의 발생 경위와 결과, #1, 3, 4 차량 운전자의 주의의무 위반 내용 및 정도를 종합하면, #1, 3, 4 차량 운전자의 과실비율은 25 : 40 : 35로 봄이 상당하다....