1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3.Paragraph 1 of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff as a non-life insurance company is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with A and B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid association which has concluded a mutual aid agreement with C and D (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On September 12, 2012, around 05:55, there was a conflict between the Plaintiff and C’s vehicle on the road in front of the 107-dong Busan Metropolitan Transportation Daegu E apartment complex.

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

On February 27, 2013, the Plaintiff paid medical expenses of KRW 1,206,70 as insurance money to F, who is the partner of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The parties' assertion

A. The point where the Plaintiff’s assertion occurred is one of three-lane main roads, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle operating two-lanes of two-lanes with the two-lanes, which was going on the rear bank, could not be easily predicted that the Defendant’s vehicle, which was going on the rear bank, e.g., shocking the back of the Plaintiff’s own vehicle. Therefore, the instant accident occurred solely due to the failure of the Defendant’s driver in front of the front week or the malfunction of the steering gear.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the collision between the two lanes of the Defendant’s vehicle and the two lanes of the Defendant’s two lanes in normal straight distance, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven on the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle, without a signal for the change of the vehicle’s lane, was rapidly operated on the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the two lanes flowed on the front side without a signal for the change of the vehicle’s lane. However, the Defendant’s accident was caused by the shock of the backer of the Plaintiff’s right side on the left side of the front line of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the force majeure was entirely caused by the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

3. Determination

A. Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 7, and Eul in the above facts of recognition.