1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, with respect to KRW 34,803,55 to the Plaintiff and KRW 5,975,985 among the judgment of the court of first instance, May 7, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: ① (i) the scope of the Plaintiff's right to indemnity against the Defendant of 5, 15, 6, and 9 of the first instance court's judgment, ② the scope of the Plaintiff's right to indemnity against the Defendant of 6, 10, and 18 of the said judgment, ② the scope of the damages liability of 4, 18 of the said judgment as follows; and (ii) the scope of the damages liability of 4, 18 of the said judgment as stated in the reasoning of the first instance court's judgment; and therefore, (iii) the same is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420

2. The part of the appeal shall be (1) The extent of the plaintiff's right to indemnity against the defendant shall be jointly and severally liable in relation to the creditor. However, in relation to the internal relation of the joint tortfeasor, there is a certain portion of liability in accordance with the degree of negligence of the joint tortfeasor. When one of the joint tortfeasor has paid one or more of his/her share of liability and has made the insurer obtain joint exemption from liability, he/she may exercise the right to indemnity against the other joint tortfeasor according to the ratio of the share of liability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da69712, Sept. 24, 2002). The insurer who concluded an insurance contract with the joint tortfeasor bears the obligation to compensate for damages directly in relation to the victim of the joint tortfeasor's relation to each joint tortfeasor. Thus, if one of the insurers has paid damages to the victim as insurance money to the victim, the insurer shall exercise the right to indemnity against the other insurer's share of liability against the other joint tortfeasor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da1969898.