1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

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

B. Around 18:15 on May 3, 2019, the driver of the Defendant vehicle, who left the front part of the Plaintiff vehicle parked in the said parking lot due to the mistake that did not verify the rear side while driving the Defendant vehicle in front of the F cafeteria E in Gyeyang-gu, Mayang-si, and caused the shock of the front part of the Plaintiff vehicle that was parked in the said parking lot.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

The accident of this case led to the damage of the front part of the Plaintiff vehicle, and the distance between the front part and the rear part of the vehicle was set up to the degree that the distance between the front part and the rear part of the vehicle was brought about by hand, and there was a gap between both fences and the Lart.

As a result, it has become necessary to repair correction, both fences, correction, etc. such as repair of the front offender and the whole-scale panel.

On June 3, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,670,000, excluding KRW 200,000,000, out of the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident (which refers to the repair cost of the front driver, with KRW 375,100, and the remainder is 375,100, and the repair cost of both sides, such as the laveing work of the front father panel, and the correction of the fences, etc.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the accident in this case occurred by the whole negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle. The accident in this case occurred not only due to the damage of the driver of the vehicle in front of the plaintiff vehicle, but also due to the occurrence of the distance between the front gateer and the front gateer, and the front gateer and both gateer, so it is necessary to repair the fences of the front gate panel, such as the laver work, and the repairs of both gates.