1. Of the judgment of the first instance, KRW 50,681,344 against the Plaintiff and its related amount from September 28, 2017 to December 18, 2019 against the Defendant.

1. The reasoning for this part of the basic facts is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In addition to the elimination of the part of the claim by the parties, the reasoning for this part is that the defendant's right to direct claim for insurance money or damage claim against the plaintiff in the first instance judgment under Section 11 of Article 4 of the Civil Procedure Act is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment, and thus, it is difficult for the court to limit the defendant's right to claim damages since the prescription has already expired."

3. Determination

A. The reason why this part of the circumstance of the instant accident is stated is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Whether the Defendant may act as an insurer or not (1) An automobile injury security is liable for the insurer to pay the insurance money stipulated in the insurance clause when the insured suffers an injury due to an accident of an insured automobile occurred while the insured owns, uses, and manages the insured automobile. However, it is a life insurance. However, in a case where the insured suffers an injury due to a sudden and rapid external accident, the insured is liable for the payment of compensation stipulated in the insurance clause according to the result. Therefore, in light of its nature, the insurer may exercise the right by subrogation to the extent that it does not harm the insured’s rights under the proviso of Article 729 of the Commercial Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da38599, Oct. 25, 2012), if the parties have agreed otherwise between the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da38599, Oct. 25, 2012).