1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On September 16, 2016, around 19:50, the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped and stopped on the part of the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”) on the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, where the Defendant’s vehicle, who was making a stop on the road in the direction of the exit exit, is the cause of the chemical in the Daegu-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, or on the road in the direction of the exit exit (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

C. On January 16, 2017, the committee for deliberation on indemnity claims filed a petition with the Plaintiff for deliberation, and on January 16, 2017, the committee for deliberation on indemnity claims determined the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle to 20:80 in consideration of the fact that the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped on an expressway at night without any justifiable reason. The Plaintiff filed a petition for reexamination on the ground that the committee for deliberation on indemnity claims maintained the decision of the subcommittee on March 27, 2017 and decided to dismiss the Plaintiff’s petition for reexamination.

On April 10, 2017, the Plaintiff paid 238,600 won for indemnity amounting to 20% of negligence according to the decision of the Deliberation Committee on Disputes over indemnity, and filed the instant lawsuit on April 18, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 7 evidence, Eul's 1 or 2 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleading and pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s failure to contribute to the occurrence of the instant accident to the Plaintiff’s driver of the instant vehicle, as the place where the instant accident occurred at a speed of 100 km to speed of 50 km from the speed of 100 km to speed of 50 km. The instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s previous negligence, such as the breach of duty at the time of front-time and the maintenance of safety distance. However, the Plaintiff erred in the reimbursement dispute deliberation committee.