A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an individual automobile insurance contract with respect to AA car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a business automobile insurance contract with respect to B cargo vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On April 12, 2013, at around 16:00, C driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driven the road located in the new grole Eup in the Gopo-si, Kimpo-si in the front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle into the boundary of the reclaimed distance. On the front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, C stopped the Defendant vehicle at the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, left away from sand and small stones (hereinafter “ sand, etc.”), and talked about the said damage. D starts the operation of the Defendant vehicle, disregarding this, D followed the Defendant vehicle, and the sand, etc., away from the said loaded fluor, she gets on the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Through the entire process, the front and front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged by sand, etc.

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

In the report on the result of internal investigation prepared by Kimpo Police Station guard, traffic, and a traffic inspection assistant E, it is stated that sand, etc. does not go against the body of the vehicle in the black box image of the plaintiff vehicle, but the above C can confirm the face of sand, etc. in the handphone camera image taken by the defendant vehicle following the vehicle of the defendant, and that the above sand, etc. face with the glass of the plaintiff vehicle.

On May 31, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,800,000 as insurance money for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number, if any) or video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion by the parties is that of the Defendant’s vehicle.