1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to A high-priced vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”). The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B high-wing vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. (1) On February 25, 2017, 01:04, 01:04, the two-lane road in front of the “D” in the front of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle traveling along the two-lane road was faced with E crossinging the said road to the left side from the right side of the direction toward the right side of the road (hereinafter “first accident”), and thereby, E exceeded the said one-lane of the said road. However, the Plaintiff’s driver immediately stopped and escaped without taking measures such as providing rescue and relief to E; (2) around the same day, the Plaintiff’s driver did not immediately stop and failed to detect and stop E in front of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “second accident”); but (3) the Defendant’s driver left the said accident area without taking measures such as providing rescue and relief to E.

C. E was killed due to Damsis damage at the above accident site.

On April 28, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 75 million to E’s child F as damages for the said primary accident. On the same day, the Plaintiff received KRW 15 million from the Defendant, and KRW 18 million from the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, as damages for the said primary accident.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, Eul 1, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. After the Plaintiff’s first accident, E was alive before the second accident, and E died due to the said first accident and the said second accident.

It is reasonable to view that the negligence ratio is “50% of the Plaintiff’s vehicle: 50% of the Defendant’s vehicle.” Thus, the Defendant is in accordance with the legal principles of subrogation by insurers and the provisions of direct claim against the insurer of the victim under Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act.