1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order of additional payment shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid contract that entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid contract with respect to a motor vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

B. On June 15, 2014, B driven a vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and went to a new hotel located in the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant hotel”) operated by the Defendant, and left the Defendant’s vehicle and key to the said hotel for the vicarious parking of the vehicle.

However, at around 17:20 of the same day, the defendant's vehicle was stolen by driving the defendant's vehicle which was parked in a state where the keys is displayed.

C. Around 20:09 on the same day, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driving two lanes in front of the F station in Gwangju City, the two lanes in front of the F station in Gwangju City. However, while the Defendant’s vehicle driving D is driving in the same direction, the two lanes were changed to the two lanes, while the Defendant’s vehicle driving in the same direction was driving in front of the said road, and the part of the lower part of the lower vehicle’s right side and the part of the lower part, with the rear door and fenced part of the lower vehicle’s left side.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

The driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident was receiving medical treatment by suffering injuries, such as the front part of the left-hand part of the automobile, the structural part of the structural part of the automobile, etc.

E. By October 20, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 26,009,280,000 in total to the Plaintiff’s medical expenses and the amount agreed upon by the Plaintiff’s driver for the instant accident as mutual aid.

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including each branch number), Gap evidence 10-1 and 2 ( Eul evidence 1-1 and 2; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence 11, Gap evidence 8, 9, and 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Ordinary motor vehicles are likely to cause harm to others in the event that a person who has no driving technology or has yet to know is driving. Therefore, Article 49(1)6 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the driver shall be a driver's seat as one of the matters to be observed by the driver.