1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 34,831,300 with respect to the Plaintiff and the period from December 30, 2015 to November 4, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A 2013 Ecuador Ecuador vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”). The Defendant Ecene cene Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is the owner of the vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”), and the Defendant National Litter car mutual aid association (hereinafter “Defendant Association”) is the mutual aid implementer who entered into a vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to the Defendant vehicle.

B. At around 16:30 on October 3, 2015, the driver of the Defendant vehicle driven the Defendant vehicle, and did not temporarily stop the shooting distance at the front of the training-dong Bridge, Yeonsu-gu Incheon, Incheon, even though it was a red on-and-off signal, and the front part of the Plaintiff vehicle, who was in the straight line from the right side of the Defendant vehicle to the right side of the Defendant vehicle, was shocked into the front part of the Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On December 29, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 49,759,00 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the accident in this case is higher than the defendant's negligence because the plaintiff's vehicle entered the intersection of the yellow on-and-off signal and the defendant's vehicle took place without stopping the red on-and-off signal. Thus, the defendant is obliged to pay 39,807,200 won to the plaintiff who exercises the insurer's right of subrogation, which is equivalent to 80% of the negligence ratio of the defendant's vehicle.

In this regard, the defendant's vehicle's access to the intersection is driving at a low speed of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle while driving the vehicle at the intersection and neglecting his duty of care to take care of other traffic while driving the vehicle at the low speed, and the accident of this case occurred. Thus, the defendant's negligence of the plaintiff vehicle is more than 40%.