1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal by the Plaintiff are assessed against the Defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract (influence insurance) with the Plaintiff’s Intervenor A (hereinafter “Supplementary Intervenor”) by using the insured vehicle C as an insurable vehicle.

B. On October 11, 2013, around 22:15, the Defendant: (a) caused an accident resulting in the injury by shocking the Intervenor crossinging the road due to the negligence of violating the duty of safe driving, such as neglecting the duty of safe driving, while driving DNA (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) from Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-ro 2A (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

C. From December 30, 2013 to October 27, 2014, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 37,210,430 to the auxiliary intervenor’s medical expenses. Of these, the Plaintiff returned KRW 20,000,000, which is the maximum amount of Defendant vehicle’s liability insurance.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entry of Gap's 1 through 4, 7, 10 through 14, 18, 21 through 23, 29, 30, Eul's entry of evidence (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the occurrence of liability for damages, the Plaintiff may, by paying medical expenses incurred by the instant accident to the Intervenor, exercise the right to claim damages against the Defendant by the Intervenor pursuant to Article 682 of the Commercial Act within the scope of the said insurance money.

B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the overall purport of the limitation of liability, are, namely, that the exit of 60 meters away from the site of the accident in this case, are situated at 3-lanes from the site of the accident in this case, and the accident in this case occurred at around 22:15 on the ordinary day, and the supplementary intervenor could have cross the accident using such underground facilities. Nevertheless, the supplementary intervenor could cross the accident in this case without the permission of the parallel as of the eight-lanes, but on the other hand, there are lots of areas around the road because commercial buildings are concentrated around the site of the accident, and the defendant had already exceeded the two-lanes of the opposite line.