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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B-owned vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned vehicles”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to C-owned vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant-owned vehicles”).

B. A, while under the influence of alcohol on January 28, 2014, around 23:42, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, at around 0.13% of the blood alcohol concentration, he driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driving the secondary freedom-based 752-2 free zone located in the Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoul, which is an exclusive road, along the three-lanes between the two-lanes.

In the right side, the defendant's vehicle was stopped over three lanes and side, and the passenger D who was on board the defendant's vehicle was on the right side of the defendant's vehicle, and he was able to sit and sit on the side.

There was no safety signs at that time.

A departing from the string to the right side of the road and going through the string to the string line installed on the right side of the road, A caused an accident where the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and D are almost at the same time shock (hereinafter “instant accident”), and due to the instant accident, D died at the site of the instant accident at around 00:09 on the following day, and A suffered an injury, such as a luoral base, luoral base, and the left-hand salt.

C. On January 16, 2015, the Plaintiff, as an insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, paid KRW 144,242,320 insurance proceeds to the bereaved families of D who died of the instant accident, pursuant to the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2014Da209467, and separately paid KRW 1,736,010 to A with the insurance proceeds of his/her own physical accident.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, video (including numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition of the negligence ratio of the original Defendant vehicle, the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle shall not be able to take the front time in the state of 0.13% alcohol concentration in blood alcohol.