1. The Defendant’s KRW 9,178,754 to the Plaintiff and its related KRW 5% per annum from November 26, 2015 to November 24, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On September 13, 2015, at around 07:05, Nonparty C driven the Defendant’s vehicle according to one-lane of the two-lanes of the Switzerland west Road located on the Gyeonggi average letter letter, which was located in the middle of the two-lanes of the west west Road. As a result, the three vehicles that followed the Defendant’s vehicle stopped in order to reduce the speed. The Plaintiff’s vehicle that followed the said three vehicles, which was the last vehicle of Nonparty D driving (hereinafter referred to as “victimd vehicle”), led to an accident attributable to Nonparty D’s E vehicle, which is the last vehicle of the said three vehicles.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case")

Due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff and the damaged vehicles were destroyed, and the victim D suffered injuries.

By November 25, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,873,30 as the non-life insurance premium for the Plaintiff’s vehicle, KRW 2,736,050 as the personal compensation for the victim D, and KRW 40,284,420 as the personal compensation for the damaged vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 6-5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The driver of the Defendant’s vehicle who asserted by the Plaintiff, even though there was no disability on the front side, operates the Defendant vehicle on the overtaking line, thereby violating the duty of care as provided by Article 19(4) of the Road Traffic Act. Such negligence by the driver of the Defendant vehicle constitutes a joint tort as to the victim D along with the negligence by the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle, and considering all the circumstances, the degree of negligence by the driver of the Defendant vehicle should be 50%.

B. The Defendant’s vehicle driver was driving at a speed of about 110 km per hour, but is due to the sexual impulse and strong solar light.