1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

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

B. Around 09:45 on September 3, 2014, the Defendant Intervenor: (a) driven the Defendant’s vehicle while driving the Defendant vehicle, and driving the vehicle along the Defendant’s right of way from the direction Seoul, Seoyang-gu Seoul to one lane; (b) the Defendant Intervenor failed to operate the brake, which was parked from the front bank as a traffic congestion; (c) and (d) the remainder of the Plaintiff’s vehicle still parked from the front bank to the front part of

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

On October 15, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 699,800 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7 through 9 (hereinafter referred to as "numbers") and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the accident in this case occurred due to failure to operate the defendant's operation, and the defendant is obligated to pay the full amount of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff and the damages for delay thereof as compensation. The defendant asserts that the accident in this case is merely a minor contact accident, and thus, the accident in this case did not cause any damage to the plaintiff's vehicle, or that it was possible to repair the plaintiff's vehicle only due to the defect in the surface of the vehicle, but the plaintiff paid insurance money equivalent to the repair cost to the plaintiff's driver on the premise that the back part of the plaintiff's vehicle was damaged due to the accident in this case, so the defendant did not have any obligation to comply with the plaintiff

B. In light of the degree, location, and form of the Plaintiff’s vehicle after the instant accident recognized prior to the judgment and the evidence revealed, the lower part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is the backer due to the instant accident.