The defendant.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with D vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”) with respect to C vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”).

B. Around 13:30 on February 25, 2019, the driver of the Defendant vehicle, who was parked on the right side of the Defendant vehicle while bypassing in the parking lot at the Gwangju District Office of the Korea Land and Information Corporation, was shocked on the front part of the Defendant vehicle, and the front part of the lower part of the Defendant vehicle, which was parked on the right side of the vehicle.

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

On March 8, 2019, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,816,00,000, except for the self-paid KRW 454,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] The contents of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In the instant accident, the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the ID were destroyed by the accident, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the full amount of the insurance proceeds paid to the Plaintiff, in light of the shock part and its degree of the Defendant’s instant accident. 2) In light of the shock part and its degree of the Defendant’s insurance proceeds paid by the Plaintiff, part of the insurance proceeds other than the Defendant and the ID cannot be deemed to have been damaged due to the instant accident, and thus, the Defendant cannot accept the claim for repair expenses, such as the Hague lamps, etc.

B. In addition to the descriptions or videos of Gap evidence Nos. 10 and 11 (including the number of pages) in the evidence as seen earlier, since the accident in this case occurred in the lower end and side of the Hague Lighting, while the front part of the plaintiff vehicle was pushed ahead with the front part of the vehicle, and the fact that the inner Bracker was damaged by the lamps, the replacement cost is reasonable to determine the amount of damage amount caused by the accident in this case.

C. According to the theory of lawsuit, the defendant's insurance proceeds of KRW 1,816,00 paid to the plaintiff and the judgment of the court of first instance.