1. The Defendant’s KRW 35,073,457 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from August 18, 2016 to July 13, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with A with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid association which entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. On December 20, 2013, at around 19:55, C, a driver of the Defendant vehicle, was driving the Defendant vehicle, and was straighted along the first lane from the distance of 443 passenger engineers to the direction of the new engineer distance, as in the south-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and stopped the vehicle after not discovering E, and facing E with the front part of the Defendant vehicle.

due to its shock, E was sub-under the Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

Plaintiff

A, who is a driver of a vehicle, was driving the Plaintiff vehicle immediately behind the Defendant vehicle, but the Defendant vehicle did not stop at all times at the wind that finds it late after the collision and stopping of E, and saw the back part of the Defendant vehicle as the front part of the Plaintiff vehicle.

Accordingly, the defendant's vehicle suffered unexpected property damage. D.

E has suffered injury, such as 16 pulse pulse pulse pulse pule pulse pule pule, etc. due to the instant accident.

E. From January 27, 2014 to May 31, 2016, the Defendant paid a total of KRW 116,911,530 for E as mutual aid for the instant accident.

F. On May 3, 2016, the Defendant asserted that the instant accident was at fault of 50% against A, and submitted a request for deliberation to the claim deliberation committee against the Plaintiff.

G. On July 18, 2016, the indemnity deliberation committee decided that the Plaintiff should pay to the Defendant KRW 46,764,612 equivalent to the Defendant’s 40% out of the mutual-aid funds that the Defendant paid to E, on the ground that the Plaintiff was responsible for 40% since the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped after stopping the Defendant’s vehicle after shocking E.

(h)..