1. The plaintiff, the defendant corporation Gap, the 14,865,238 won, and the defendant Samsung Fire Co., Ltd., the defendant corporation Eul.

1. The defendant A (hereinafter "the defendant A") made an automobile insurance contract with the defendant Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the defendant Samsung Fire") concerning the automobile B owned by the defendant. Thus, since the victim caused by the above vehicle must directly file a claim against the defendant Samsung Fire, the insurance company, the plaintiff's defense that the lawsuit against the defendant A is unlawful. However, in a lawsuit for performance, the plaintiff's defense against the defendant A is legitimate. The above ground as asserted by the defendant A is only the ground to determine whether it is a claim, and it is not a matter to be determined as a party's eligibility before the main claim. Thus, the defendant A's defense is without merit.

2. Occurrence of claims for indemnity;

A. The facts of recognition (1) The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to CKaman vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant A is an employer of Nonparty D and E, and the Defendant Samsung Fire is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with Nonparty F, the representative of Defendant A, with respect to F B Poter vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

(2) At around 11:00 on May 25, 2012, D driven the Defendant’s vehicle in the course of performing his duties as an employee of Defendant A, and, at around 11:00 on May 25, 2012, driven the front part of Non-Party G vehicle, which was the previous vehicle, due to the negligence of neglecting the duty of Jeonju, while driving one lane near the Hongdong-dong Hongdong, Seoul.

(3) However, while the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle following the Defendant’s vehicle was stopped due to the first accident, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was forced to report the Defendant vehicle which was stopped due to the first accident, but the vehicle did not reach this, and the vehicle behind the Defendant’s vehicle was shocked (hereinafter “the second accident”). (4) The first and second instances of this case are as follows.