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 Defendant for D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) with respect to C vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”).

B. On October 20, 2018, the Plaintiff’s driver driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle, driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle on three-lanes, and driving the 332km away from the Busan metropolitan bank. However, in the same direction, the Defendant’s vehicle, which had been previously driving on the two-lanes, was driving away from the road (hereinafter “instant falling matter”), and the instant falling matter was faced with the Plaintiff’s beams, driver’s seat, and front glass (hereinafter “instant accident”). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24248, Oct. 2018; Presidential Decree No. 2502, Oct. 2, 2018; Presidential Decree No. 25034, Oct. 2, 2015>

C. On November 22, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,503,00 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4, 7, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. If the Plaintiff’s vehicle driver secured the safety distance with the previous vehicle and drive the vehicle in compliance with the duty of the front line, the driver could not reverse it by discovering and avoiding the instant abortion in advance.

따라서 피고 차량이 이 사건 낙하물을 역과하는 바람에 이 사건 낙하물이 원고 차량으로 튕겨져 발생한 이 사건 사고에 대하여 피고 차량 운전자는 손해배상책임이 있다.

나. 판단 갑 7호증의 영상에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 이 사건 사고 발생 당시 피고 차량이 원고 차량보다 앞서 주행하는 과정에서 이 사건 낙하물이 원고 차량 쪽으로 튕겨져 나와 원고 차량을 충격한 사실이 인정되나, 위 증거로부터 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정을 종합해 보면, 피고 차량 운전자에게는 이 사건 사고의 발생과 관련하여 불법행위책임을 물을 수 있는 고의 또는 과실이 없다고 봄이 상당하다.

① This case.