1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff Vehicle”). The Defendant is an insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On July 3, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was under way to start at the expressway parking lot located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

At this time, the first door was opened for the passengers of the defendant vehicle who was parked on the left-hand side, but at this time the plaintiff argued that the part was damaged before the left-hand side of the plaintiff vehicle.

C. On October 19, 2018, the Plaintiff paid 529,000 won, excluding the Plaintiff’s self-paid share, at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 10, video, purport of whole pleading

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. During the Plaintiff’s argument, the passengers of the Defendant vehicle opened the front door, they were sleeped and destroyed by shocking the front part of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat.

B. Determination 1) In principle, the burden of proof of causation between the harmful act and the occurrence of damage should be deemed to be the victim in tort (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da33193, Dec. 10, 191). 2) In full view of the facts recognized as above and the overall purport of each evidence evidence, the following circumstances are acknowledged, which are hard to conclude that the plaintiff's passenger was shocked with the plaintiff's vehicle when the defendant's passenger opened the front door, even if there was no dispute or problem related thereto at the site, and the plaintiff's passenger was in receipt of the insurance accident on July 5, 2018 after the lapse of two days from the above (the probability of a separate contact accident). Accordingly, the plaintiff confirmed damage at the time and raised a problem immediately due to personal circumstances.