2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with the Plaintiff Company B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant Company C (hereinafter “Defendant Bus”).

나. 피고 버스 운전자가 2016. 8. 30. 06:21경 피고 버스를 운전하여 서울 서초구 우면동 서해안고속도로 편도 4차선 도로 중 4차로상을 진행하던 중 도로상에 방치되어 있던 물체를 미처 발견하지 못하고 좌측 바퀴로 충격하여 위 물체가 튕기면서 같은 도로 중 2차로상을 주행 중이던 원고 차량의 전면 및 우측 측면을 충격하였다

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

On October 19, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,440,000 to Plaintiff’s vehicle repair cost, etc.

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

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the accident in this case occurred due to the violation of the duty of the driver of the bus in front of the defendant. Thus, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff should pay the above 2,440,000 won with the amount of indemnity and damages for delay.

B. In general, as a driver of an automobile driving on an expressway, which is the place of the instant traffic accident, the driver of an automobile driving on the exclusive expressway, is not likely to anticipate that the obstacle on the road would appear. Thus, barring any circumstances that could anticipate specific risks, it cannot be said that the driver has a duty of care to pay prompt depreciation in operating an automobile on the expressway, barring special circumstances.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 71Do623, May 24, 1971). In addition, in a case where an accident was caused by drilling an obstacle far away on a main line on an expressway, if such obstacle was discovered and the accident was immediately withdrawn, it is possible to stop without collision with the obstacle.