1. The plaintiff supplementary intervenor's appeal is dismissed.

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

purport.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 26, 2016, around 09:05, the Defendant driven the E vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) and proceeded two-lanes of the two-lane road in front of GF incheon City in the direction of the central intersection in the direction of the road, and H, who boarded the bicycle on the right side from the left side of the running direction of the instant vehicle, shocked into the left side of the front side of the instant vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

As a result of the instant accident, H suffered from injury, such as blood transfusion in the brain room, cerebral thalin, closed pelke, closed pelke, e.g., e., e., e., e., mathy, e., e., e., mathy., e., g., the Plaintiff’s Intervenor paid KRW 67,301,960 for the total costs of H’s medical treatment in accordance with the special contract for non-life insurance for the J-motor vehicle that

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff paid KRW 19,170,630 out of the above insurance money paid by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor in accordance with the provisions on share of double insurance, and KRW 19,170,630 out of the above insurance money paid by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor in accordance with the share of double insurance, pursuant to the provisions on share of double insurance, pursuant to an automobile insurance contract for L vehicles entered into with H, a comprehensive automobile insurance contract for N vehicles entered into with M, a child of H, and a special agreement for non-life insurance for P vehicles entered into with H, a fraud of H.O.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, 8, 9 evidence, Eul evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The parties' assertion

A. The bicycle driven by the Plaintiff and the Intervenor’s Intervenor at the time of the instant accident was not crossing the road, but was changing the lane. On the other hand, the instant vehicle was under the influence of the vehicle, and even if it was possible to fully discover the said bicycle prior to the instant accident, the Plaintiff and the Intervenor’s Intervenor neglected the duty of booming.