1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to Atetra vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”). The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B rocketing vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 17:00 on April 12, 2014, C, while driving the Defendant’s vehicle and entering the lane from the side of the road adjoining to the lane, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along the lane was shocked, as the Sinsking City.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

Plaintiff

The driver of a vehicle and his/her Dong, who is the driver of the vehicle, and the passenger, were hospitalized or treated in a hospital at L if they were mentioned in the aggregate. D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K (hereinafter collectively referred to as “eight persons, such as D”).

From April 25, 2014 to February 6, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,054,630 to eight medical expenses, including D, and agreed amount.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 6-1 to 8, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' arguments and the judgment on them

A. The defendant asserts that there is no causation between the accident of this case and the injury of eight persons, since it is not possible for eight persons, such as D, etc. to suffer injury in light of the situation of the accident of this case and the degree of damage of the vehicle, and that there is no causation between the accident of this case and the injury of eight persons, such as D, etc.

B. (1) According to the video of the evidence No. 2, No. 1, and No. 4-2, No. 2, and No. 3 as to whether the causal link between the accident and the injury is recognized, it can be acknowledged that a traffic accident confirmation center prepared by the Silung Police Station was indicated as “the injured 0 persons” as the content of damage, and that the scrap receiver generated by the body on the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle’s driver’s seat was not pathed.

However, evidence Nos. 3 and 6-1.