1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part "3....." which was the fourth "in the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows. Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. According to the above findings of the determination, the accident of this case occurred by the negligence of the defendant Ortobian driver on the part of the plaintiff, who neglected the duty of the plaintiff's driver on the right right-hand side and the duty of the front right-hand side, without properly examining the traffic situation of the front right-handle at a place where no signal, etc. is installed.

Since the plaintiff's driver A and the defendant's driver C are jointly liable for damages caused by the death of D as joint tortfeasor for the accident of this case.

In light of the cause and circumstances of the accident in this case, road conditions, and the degree and degree of the collision of each vehicle, it is reasonable to view that the negligence ratio is 70% on the part of the plaintiff and 30% on the part of the defendant.

The plaintiff asserts that D's negligence should also be taken into account by the defendant's negligence, but according to the Eul evidence 3, the plaintiff set damages by considering D's negligence that D did not wear a safety mother at 20% and recognized that D's agreement was reached with D's bereaved family members on the premise of setting damages by taking into account the negligence that D's negligence did not wear a safety mother at 20%, and since there is no evidence to see D's common operator's identity on the part

Furthermore, the fact that the plaintiff, who is an insurer of one of the joint tortfeasors, paid 330,347,770 won to his bereaved family members for the agreed amount of damages caused by D's death and jointly relieved of liability is as seen above. Since there is no dispute between the parties that the agreed amount should be paid to D and his bereaved family members, the defendant, who is the insurer of the defendant Ortoba, is the insurer of the defendant, under Article 682 of the Commercial Act.