1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff ordering payment is revoked.

The defendant on 858.0

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B-owned vehicles (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff vehicle"), and the defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to C-owned vehicles (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant vehicle").

B. A, around 19:50 on March 4, 2015, driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and proceeded into two lanes in the direction of Kim Sea-si on the two-lane road in front of the oil station in the city of Kim Sea, and stopped in accordance with the new subparagraph of the suspension of the front line crosswalk while driving in the two-lane road in the city of Kim Sea.

At that time, the Defendant’s vehicle, which was proceeding following the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was operated by reporting the suspension of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, but did not immediately stop the Plaintiff vehicle, and was concealed as the fronter of the Defendant’s vehicle as the fronter.

(hereinafter referred to as "accident of this case"). C.

Due to the above accident, the part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was destroyed, and on May 7, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,862,00 as insurance money.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence and scope of liability for payment of indemnity money;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant accident was caused by the negligence of the Defendant’s driver, such as the failure to maintain the safety distance and the violation of the duty of care in the front direction. As such, the Defendant ought to pay the Plaintiff the indemnity amount of KRW 2,862,00 and the damages for delay. 2) The Defendant’s vehicle driver did not maintain the safety distance with the Defendant’s vehicle and did not take appropriate measures to prevent the occurrence of an accident with the Defendant’s vehicle following the instant accident, and did not take appropriate measures to prevent the occurrence of an accident with the Defendant’s vehicle following the instant accident.

B. The following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff’s vehicle, taking into account the overall intent of each film and pleading, i.e., the following circumstances, i., the Plaintiff’s vehicle: