A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to B vehicles owned by A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is the owner of C Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. A, around 00:30 on March 4, 2016, driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, and driving a two-lane between the two-lanes in front of the Pyeong Middle School.

However, the Defendant’s vehicle running in one lane prior to the Plaintiff’s vehicle stops on its own at the point where the intersection of the three-distance crossing, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle following the Defendant’s vehicle received the rear part of the Defendant’s vehicle as the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

On March 16, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,311,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred is reasonable to deem that the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle is 80% due to an accident in which the Defendant’s vehicle, which is a prior vehicle, stops at the intersection at night, and followed the Defendant’s vehicle by sudden stop. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff’s repair cost of KRW 2,311,00, equivalent to the fault ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle among KRW 1,848,80, and delay damages.

B. Determination 1: (a) the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence as seen earlier, namely, the Defendant vehicle was stopped at a sufficient distance from the Plaintiff vehicle and the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle was trying to move the Defendant vehicle by giving a more attention to the operation of the vehicle, would have been able to avoid collision by changing the course to a two-lane; and (b) the Plaintiff vehicle would have stopped at a one-lane without lowering the speed, and immediately before the collision with the Defendant vehicle.