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

B. Around 08:00 on December 18, 2015, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is proceeding along one lane in the direction of ideas, along the two-lane road in the direction of ideas, from the front section of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, while driving along the front section of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the front section of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the lower part of the back part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was at a speed, was visible to the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and immediately thereafter, the Nonparty’s vehicle, who was proceeding along the same lane, turned the rear part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle into the front part of the Nonparty vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

By December 29, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 880,200,00 in total for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Evidence Nos. 1 to 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff provided the cause for the plaintiff's vehicle that had been driven by the plaintiff's vehicle due to a sudden stop without any reason while the defendant's vehicle was in a direct position. Since it is reasonable to deem the negligence of the defendant vehicle to the extent of 50%, the defendant who is the insurer of the defendant vehicle is obliged to pay 440,100 won of the insurance proceeds paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff, which corresponds to the ratio of the defendant vehicle's fault.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver, who neglected the duty to keep the vehicle in front without securing the safety distance with the vehicle in front, and thus, the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to respond to the instant claim.

B. According to the above evidence, the defendant vehicle at the time of the accident in this case is one-lane.