1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. Costs of the appeal and incidental appeal shall be respectively made by each person.

1. Basic facts

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

B. At around 12:10 on November 29, 2014, the Defendant’s vehicle: (a) went to the left-hand turn to the right-hand turn on the front of the Seomun-ri, Seomun-gu, Seoyang-gu, Jin-si, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-si, and attempted to stop; (b) the Defendant’s vehicle was shocked to the Plaintiff’s vehicle going to the right-hand in the same direction at the rear side of the Defendant’s vehicle located in the Mapo-si (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. By December 24, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,502,300 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 2, or the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's assertion that the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle continued to walk the plaintiff's vehicle even though the driver reported that the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle is moving along the defendant's vehicle and suspended the horn, and then the plaintiff's vehicle was parked.

As to this, the Defendant asserted that the instant accident was caused by the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, since the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who was proceeding after the Plaintiff, was negligent in front-rounding, did not look at the situation of the rear-round vehicle in order to bring back the rear-round vehicle.

B. In light of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the instant accident obstructs the move of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in preparation for the following reasons: (a) the Plaintiff’s error in the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle could resume due to the Plaintiff’s failure to discover the Plaintiff’s vehicle, without finding the U.S. vehicle, while attempting to her U.S., making a temporary stop due to a lack of reflective radius; and (b) the Plaintiff’s fault and the Plaintiff’s vehicle could resume due to the Plaintiff’s failure to do so at once.