1.The judgment of the first instance, including any claims added at the trial, shall be modified as follows:

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with C (hereinafter “Defendant 1”) with D (hereinafter “Defendant 2”).

B. On October 18, 2015, around 18:00, A’s spouse E driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and tried to change the two lanes from the 27th amendment section to the subsection to the subsection of the national highways of the 27th amendment military city, while returning the two lanes again, the collision between the front part of Defendant 1 and the rear part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who driven the same direction, driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant primary accident”).

C. The instant first accident occurred that led to the collision between Defendant 2’s front and the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant second accident”) driving in the same direction as the vehicle parked in the same direction. D. The instant second accident occurred.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 7,889,761 at the repair cost of the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant primary accident, and KRW 7,429,114 at the repair cost of the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant secondary accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (i) The Plaintiff’s assertion in the instant primary accident occurred when Defendant 1, who had followed the Plaintiff’s vehicle without completing the replacement of the vehicle with prior vehicle, was trying to overtake the instant primary accident by raising the speed of Defendant 1. However, Defendant 1’s driver attempted to change the vehicle’s vehicle and return the vehicle to the original lane, but at least there was negligence that did not properly conduct the prior vehicle at all times, and that ratio constitutes 50% of the repair cost paid by the Plaintiff by the Plaintiff with the first accident.