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

Basic Facts

Hyundai Cargo Damage Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Nonindicted Company”) is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff vehicles”), and the Defendant is the driver of C vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”).

Around 12:58 on October 18, 2014, the Defendant’s vehicle changed to the three-lanes along the two-lanes of the road near the 5-lane in the vicinity of the Sardi-dong, Seosung-gu, Daejeon. Around October 18, 2014, the Defendant’s vehicle changed to the three-lanes of the two-lanes of the road near the Sardi-dong, and immediately re-enters the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was rapidly stopped according to the intersection stop signal, after entering the three-lanes in the same direction, and immediately re-enters the front part of the Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”) Nonparty Company paid KRW 4,308,110 in total to the Defendant for hospital treatment expenses, agreement fees, etc. due to the instant accident from November 13, 2014 to June 30, 2015.

On May 27, 2015, the Plaintiff succeeded to the rights and obligations under the automobile insurance contract for the Plaintiff’s vehicle after receiving an authorization for business takeover from the non-party company at that time.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, Gap evidence Nos. 5, Gap evidence Nos. 5, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the argument and judgment of the judgment, the plaintiff asserted that the accident of this case occurred due to the whole negligence of defendant vehicle who neglected the duty of care. The defendant asserts that since the non-party company gains the insurance money already paid to the defendant without any legal ground, it shall return it to the plaintiff who acquired the right and duty of the

As to this, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred by competition between the negligence of the defendant vehicle and the plaintiff vehicle, so the defendant does not have the obligation to return the accident to the plaintiff in full.

Judgment

l.p. g., p.