1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant B is modified as follows.

Defendant B is jointly with Defendant A.

1. Occurrence of liability for indemnity;

A. The facts of recognition (1) The Plaintiff is an insurer of the National Health Insurance that provides citizens with insurance benefits for the prevention, diagnosis, and rehabilitation of disease and injury, for the medical treatment and rehabilitation of the citizens, for childbirth death, and for the improvement of health pursuant to the National Health Insurance Act. Defendant A is the owner of GOtoba (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”); C is the driver of the Defendant vehicle at the time of the following accident; Defendant B and F is the legal heir of the Defendant vehicle; H is the insured of the national health insurance conducted by the Plaintiff, who was injured by the following

(2) On December 23, 2016, at around 21:35, C, while driving the Defendant’s vehicle on a three-lane road in front of Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, having driven the Defendant’s vehicle, and driving it on a three-lane road in front of Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the central line was obstructed, and there was an accident in which C and H continued collision between the Oraba and the taxi for business use, which were normally driven at a one-lane adjacent to the central line,

(3) Around December 23, 2016 to December 24, 2016, H received treatment equivalent to KRW 7,722,870 (i.e., Plaintiff’s charges of KRW 5,961,660 (i.e., KRW 1,761,210), and the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,961,660 (excluding Plaintiff’s charges of KRW 5,961,660) to the pertinent hospital on March 9, 2017.

(4) E is an insurer that has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with Defendant A with respect to the Defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] The descriptions and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above recognition of the claim for indemnity, the accident of this case occurred due to negligence that conflict with the central line while driving the Defendant vehicle at the above date and at the above place, and as such, C is a tort, and the Defendant A is jointly a person operating the Defendant vehicle, and the damage incurred by H due to the accident of this case.