Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On August 26, 2019, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven around the road near Jungjin-gun E in the direction of the dong-ri in the direction of the dong-ri, and the Defendant’s vehicle runs across the central line in the opposite part at the time.

Plaintiff

As above, the driver of the vehicle reduced the string of the vehicle by the string of the vehicle, and as a result, the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was partially damaged (hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On October 2, 2019, the Plaintiff paid 3,618,000 won to the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, excluding 362,00 won of his/her own charge, as repair cost for the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers for those with numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. Since the accident of this case occurred due to the fall load away from the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s loading of the Defendant vehicle, the Defendant is the insurer of the Defendant vehicle, in accordance with Article 682(1) of the Commercial Act, and the Defendant shall pay the above insurance money and delayed damages to the Plaintiff who exercises the Plaintiff’s right to claim compensation for damages.

B. Determination 1) It is difficult to verify the circumstance that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged due to the fallen goods, which was separated from the loading of the Defendant’s vehicle by only the images of the evidence No. 6 of the Plaintiff Party A (the Plaintiff’s black image), and even based on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, it is not proven that the Plaintiff’s assertion was not proven (the Plaintiff did not submit the monetary content regarding the receipt of the initial insurance even if the Defendant’s request for the submission made again by the Plaintiff).