1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with the automobile E (hereinafter “Defendant”), with respect to the automobile D (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with the automobile E (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On April 19, 2019, around 08:25, while the Plaintiff’s Intervenor was driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the back side of the city in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and moving the Plaintiff into the Han Riverside, there was a traffic accident that conflicts between the back part of the Defendant’s vehicle that was going behind the direction and the back part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(c)

On June 18, 2019, the Plaintiff paid the remainder of KRW 1,408,00,000, excluding KRW 352,000,000, out of the total repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was moving back to the slowly in trust that there was no vehicle running back from the backway in Gangdong-gu Seoul, Seoul, where the departure is prohibited, and the Defendant’s vehicle was stopped to avoid the collision. However, the instant accident occurred while the Defendant’s vehicle continued driving along one side while driving ahead of it.

Therefore, since the instant accident occurred due to the total negligence of Defendant vehicle, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,408,000 for reimbursement equivalent to the repair cost and the delayed damages.

B. In full view of the above evidence and the purport of the entire theory of change, it seems that the negligence of the defendant vehicle, which conflict with the plaintiff vehicle that was faced with the opposite part, was not small, in violation of the order of prohibition of entry into the road and the order of prohibition of entry into the road.

However, the above evidence, in particular, the background, degree of shock and shock of the instant accident, which can be known by video at the time of the instant accident, and the time of the accident.