Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked, and the cancellation shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an indemnity insurance contract with the non-insurer who compensates for the injury inflicted upon C and his/her family D, etc. by a non-insured car, and the Defendant was driving a vehicle E (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”) at the date and time and place of subsection (b).

B. On September 20, 2016, around 12:13, G bank located in Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, caused an accident of collision between D’s and Defendant vehicles for pedestrian aids (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(c)

On November 10, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,739,730 of the insurance money to the medical expenses of D, etc. Around that time, the Plaintiff recovered KRW 1,600,000 from the responsible insurance company of Defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In full view of all the circumstances, such as the background of the instant accident, degree of shock and shock, road condition at the time, etc., revealed by the evidence prior to the determination, it is reasonable to view that the ratio of negligence between D and the Defendant in the instant accident is 35%: 65% (the Defendant’s negligence is greater than the Defendant’s negligence, violating the duty of a driver on the front side of the instant accident and the duty of a driver on the front side.

On the other hand, it is somewhat unreasonable not only used a driver's vehicle for pedestrian assistance in the roadway which is not a sidewalk at the time, but also used a pedestrian crossing in order to cut off the crosswalk.

D's negligence is also small.

Therefore, the Defendant’s claim amounting to KRW 180,824 (=(2,739,730 x 65 per cent) - 1,600,000 and less than KRW 1,600) and the payment of insurance proceeds to the Plaintiff is reasonable to dispute as to the existence or scope of the Defendant’s obligation to pay insurance proceeds from November 11, 2016, the day following the payment of insurance proceeds.

Until February 16, 2021, which is the date of the adjudication of the court of the case recognized, the Civil Code provides for 5% per annum under the Civil Code and the special law on the promotion of litigation from the next day to the day of full payment.