1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the amount ordered below.

1. Basic facts

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

B. On March 11, 2017, at around 17:15, the Defendant, in front of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, had the Plaintiff walked with the right gate and door door of the Plaintiff’s vehicle parked at the same place without any reason under the influence of alcohol, and had the Plaintiff walked with drinking and drinking by drinking and drinking.

(hereinafter “instant act of destruction”) was prosecuted for committing a crime, and the judgment of conviction (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2017Da1762 Decided June 21, 2017) was finalized as it became final and conclusive after being sentenced to a fine of KRW 500,00 for the crime of causing property damage.

C. On November 10, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,723,00 in total as repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number of evidence) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the damage caused by the damage of the Plaintiff’s Defendant caused the damage to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the full amount of the repair cost paid by the Plaintiff, who acquired the right of compensation by subrogation from the insurer.

B. Since it is recognized that it is difficult to view that the damage of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was caused by the damage of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the criminal judgment that became final and conclusive by the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is unreasonable since there is no proximate causal relation between the repair cost of the Plaintiff’

3. Determination

A. We examine the following facts, i.e., the Defendant’s act of damaging the instant vehicle, and the fact that the amount of KRW 4,723,00 was spent at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is as recognized in the aforementioned basic facts. However, on the other hand, the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively considering the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings are accepted by the Plaintiff’s vehicle owner.