1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1.The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties, or in the entries or videos of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4, 6, and Eul evidence No. 1 to 4, or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings:

The plaintiff is the insurer who has concluded each comprehensive automobile insurance contract for the AP car (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant") with respect to the APP car (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff vehicle").

B. Around 08:55 on December 8, 2014, the driver of the Defendant vehicle driven the Defendant vehicle, driving the vehicle, driving on the one-lane road located in the right-to-efluence of port-to-Eup, Nam-gu (hereinafter referred to as the “road” in this case) at the port-to-efluence, and shocked the front part of the Plaintiff vehicle’s left-hand part of the back part of the Defendant vehicle running along the center line.

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

On January 30, 2015, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,724,00 with repair expenses, etc.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s instant accident occurred due to the unilateral negligence of the Defendant’s driver who did not drive safely on the snow, and the Plaintiff’s driver could not anticipate this movement of the Defendant’s vehicle or avoid collision with the Defendant’s vehicle. Therefore, the Plaintiff has the right to claim for the full amount of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff against the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, and damages for delay.

B. The accident of this case occurred because the plaintiff's vehicle driving on the opposite side of the road of this case intrudes on the central line because the driver of the defendant's vehicle was deprived of snowway, and even though the driver of the defendant's vehicle stopped on the right side of the defendant's vehicle, the plaintiff's vehicle was shocked to the defendant's vehicle.

Therefore, since the accident of this case is caused by the unilateral negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle, the defendant is not obligated to respond to the plaintiff's claim for compensation

In addition, the plaintiff is the defendant after the judgment of the first instance is rendered.