1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 7,249,600 against the Plaintiff as to the Defendant and its related amount, from February 3, 2017 to January 31, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B-owned vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned vehicles”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C-owned vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant-owned vehicles”).

B. On December 29, 2016, at around 14:49, the Defendant’s vehicle changed the line to two lanes among the four-lanes of the shooting distance distance of the original university at the front of the Defendant’s right side while changing the two-lanes of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was straighten from the two-lanes, into the front of the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

The instant accident caused damage to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and on February 2, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 9,062,000 of the insurance money equivalent to the Plaintiff’s automobile repair cost to A in accordance with the said comprehensive automobile insurance contract.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s instant accident was caused by the total fault of the Defendant vehicle, which caused a sudden change of the vehicle to a two-lane, which was sent to the left or to the left-hand turn, and the Plaintiff paid the vehicle repair cost to A on behalf of the Defendant. As such, the Plaintiff is entitled to indemnity in accordance with the insurer subrogation doctrine under Article 682 of the Commercial Act.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 9,062,00 and damages for delay.

B. The instant accident is an accident caused by competition between the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle, which did not yield the course to the Defendant’s vehicle even after discovering the Defendant’s vehicle from the first lane to the second lane. The negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle in relation to the said accident constitutes 70%.

3. Determination

A. The facts stated in Paragraph 1 appear or the evidence mentioned above are presented.