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 insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to A truck (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurance company that entered into a vehicle insurance contract with respect to B tank glass (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On October 21, 2014, around 11:32, 201, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, while proceeding along one-lane from the lower bank to the west bank, along the front side of the CBata (hereinafter “Satata”)’s back part of the CBata (hereinafter “Sata”) that proceeded.

As a result, in front of the vehicle, the front part of the D4.5 tons Mega truck (hereinafter referred to as "the front vehicle") which was stopped in front of the road due to being pushed ahead.

(C) The Defendant’s vehicle: (a) while driving at the same place, shocked the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was parked due to the first accident; (b) as a result, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was pushed ahead of it to the port side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle; (c) shocked the front side of the front front vehicle; and (d) shocked the rear side of the front front vehicle (hereinafter “the second accident”).

Under the instant insurance contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 15,409,500 in total as the repair cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle on November 6, 2014, and KRW 11,809,500 on December 5, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts and the evidence of the court below, the accident of this case Nos. 1 and 2 and damages therefrom was caused by the negligence of the plaintiff driver and the defendant driver who neglected his duty of care to ensure the distance between the road and the tunnel where the accident occurred, especially in the case where the accident took place within the tunnel where the accident is easy to occur, and the accident of this case was caused by the negligence of the plaintiff driver and the defendant driver.