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

B. On October 25, 2019, around 19:33, 2019, in the vicinity of the Dong-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon, where the Defendant rolling stock concealed the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle waiting for signal (hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On November 24, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,193,00 as total insurance money to F, who is the owner of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (i.e., vehicle value of KRW 5,980,000 - remaining goods return of KRW 787,00) and sought payment of KRW 5,193,00 against the Defendant.

(d)

However, while recognizing the fact that the instant accident occurred due to the previous negligence of the Defendant’s driver, the Defendant recognized the value of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as KRW 4,000,000 assessed by G institution at the time of the instant accident, and paid only KRW 3,213,000 as the amount of indemnity to the Plaintiff on November 14, 2019 (=4,000,000 - KRW 787,000).

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8, Eul evidence No. 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. It is reasonable to view that the value of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the instant allegation by the Plaintiff is KRW 5,980,000, which is calculated in accordance with the H’s vehicle standard value table. Since the Defendant unfairly assesseded KRW 4,000, the Defendant paid KRW 3,213,00,000, the Defendant should additionally pay the remainder of KRW 1,980,000 (==5,980,000 - KRW 787,000 - KRW 3,213,00) to the Plaintiff.

3. The evidence No. 7 (the value table on the vehicle standard) that the Plaintiff used as data to calculate the damages of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is that H set the standard value of various vehicles to calculate the insurance premium at the time of the conclusion of the insurance contract with respect to the vehicle and the total amount of losses at the time of the occurrence of the insurance accident. Thus, it is difficult to view that it is representing the amount equivalent to the actual market price of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and thus, the total amount of