1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is as follows, and this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. The Plaintiff’s insurance money payment, etc. 1) Victim Network D (hereinafter “victim”).

J and K (hereinafter referred to as “heirs”) who are their successors.

) The Plaintiff, the insurer which was the owner of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, G, and G, and H Co., Ltd., the insurer of the Plaintiff’s substitute driver E operating the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “H”).

) A suit was filed against the victim seeking damages due to the victim’s death (Seoul Central District Court 2016da5272987, 2017da519, hereinafter referred to as “instant suit”).

[2] Around July 19, 2018, the Defendants participated in the instant lawsuit as a supplementary intervenor. (2) Around July 19, 2018, the inheritors, the Plaintiffs of the instant lawsuit, agreed with the Plaintiff to the effect that “he inheritors would give up the claim for damages for each of the instant accidents at the same time with the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 310,000,000 from the Plaintiff.” Around July 20, 2018, the instant lawsuit was withdrawn after receiving KRW 310,000 from the Plaintiff.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In the death of the victim, the negligence of Defendant C ought to be recognized to be more than 90%. 2) Since the Defendants deposited 25,00,000 won as part of the obligation, the effect of repayment does not occur, and the heir of the victim has already renounced the remainder of the right to claim compensation by agreement with the Plaintiff. As such, even if the heir of the victim had received the Defendants’ deposit money, it constitutes a receipt by a person who is not authorized to receive it, and the said deposit amount cannot be deducted from the indemnity amount.

B. In the case of the death of one victim, the negligence of the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is by Defendant C.