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

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff is the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”).

(A) is a corporation operating the industrial accident compensation insurance business in accordance with section A (hereinafter referred to as “victim”).

A) B, which is a workplace subject to industrial accident compensation insurance under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as “non-party company”).

2) The Defendant is an insurer that has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to D low-priced vehicles owned by C (hereinafter referred to as “insured vehicles”).

B. C is in operation on November 5, 2014 from the south-gu, Yancheon-gu, Yancheon-gu, Yancheon-gu to the parallel of the Western-do.

During the U.S. U.S., the U.S. had caused an accident that conflicts on the front side of the U.S. vehicle with the part adjacent to the upper left side of the U.S., which is directly linked to the J.S., on the part of the U.S., the U.S., on the other hand.

C. In the instant accident, the victims suffered from both sides of the upper upper throke, the right upper throke, both sides of the knenee lee scare scare scare scare scare scare, the left scare scare scare.

The Plaintiff recognized the injury suffered by the victim due to the instant accident as an occupational accident, and paid the victim medical care benefits of KRW 4,892,590, temporary layoff benefits of KRW 7,289,120, disability benefits of KRW 7,968,880, respectively, pursuant to the Industrial Accident Insurance Act.

E. Meanwhile, the Defendant also paid 6,761,570 won to the victim of the instant accident to the victim of the instant accident.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap’s 1 through 5, 9 through 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the accident of this case occurred due to negligence in violation of C's duty of safe driving, which is the driver of a sea-going vehicle, and thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damage suffered by the victim due to the accident of this case as the insurer of a sea-going vehicle.

On the other hand, the plaintiff paid insurance benefits to the victim under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, Article 87 of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act.