1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the Defendant Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant 1”) is an insurer who has concluded each comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant 1”).

Defendant Hyundai taxi Co., Ltd is the owner of Csi (hereinafter “Defendant 2”) who entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

B. On April 18, 2016, around 12:21, 2016, the Plaintiff’s vehicle used three lanes in front of “D” (hereinafter “instant road”) in front of “D” located in the Busan Seo-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant road”) from the same Gumyeong-dong bank located in the same Gumyeong-dong bank, and was, according to the stop signal, during the three-lane signal of the instant road.

At this time, Defendant 1 driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the signal atmosphere while driving along the three-lanes of the instant road (hereinafter “the first accident”), and Defendant 2 followed Defendant 1’s vehicle immediately after the first accident (hereinafter “the second accident”). The second accident led to the shock of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in contact with Defendant 1, which was in contact with Defendant 1.

(hereinafter referred to as the "instant traffic accident"). (C) The 1/2 accident causing shock to the Plaintiff is referred to as the "the instant traffic accident".

The Plaintiff, as the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant traffic accident, paid KRW 2,428,860,00 in total, from July 6, 2016 to December 2, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 2 to 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In full view of the facts of the above determination and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court, at the time of the occurrence of the instant traffic accident, the driver of the Defendants’ vehicle neglected his duty of care to avoid drilling with the preceding vehicle and to secure a safe distance. Such negligence by the Defendants’ vehicle drivers are competing.