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

Purport of claim and appeal

The defendant.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has entered into the automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 14:07 on May 6, 2013, C: (a) had been driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the industrial re-section parking lot located in the 2nd-dong, Daegu-gu, Daegu-si; (b) however, there was an accident in which the Defendant’s vehicle parked on the left side of the Madge C proceeding, and the back part of the Defendant’s vehicle and the side part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle are dispatched.

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

On July 4, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,303,90 to a vehicle repair business entity for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, 2, Eul evidence 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and its judgment

A. The instant accident alleged by the Plaintiff was caused by the negligence of the Defendant’s driver, since the instant accident was wholly caused by the instant accident, since the Defendant’s driver did not properly look at the rear, and the Plaintiff’s driver could not avoid such collision with the rear part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 682 of the Commercial Act, the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant vehicle, is obligated to pay KRW 1,303,90,000 as the amount of indemnity to the Plaintiff who paid KRW 1,303,90 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff vehicle as the insurance money, and any delay delay

The plaintiff asserts that he paid KRW 1,303,90 to the plaintiff's repair cost of the plaintiff's vehicle in the complaint of this case, and that the defendant acquired the right to indemnity in accordance with Article 682 of the Commercial Act, as the defendant jointly exempted.

However, this case is not a case where the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle inflict damages on the third party as joint tortfeasor. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is not a case.