1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

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

B. On March 7, 2019, around 14:18, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding in the vicinity of the Namyang-ju Tol (hereinafter “instant stone”) along the two-lanes of the outer circular Highway in Guri-si, Seoul. However, there was an accident that the front glass of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged due to the shock of the front glass of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “the instant stone”) leading along the two-lanes of the same road.

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

On April 9, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,180,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in accordance with the automobile insurance contract.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the accident of this case occurred with the stone of this case, which was fallen while loaded on the previous defendant's vehicle, and the driver of the defendant's vehicle violated such duty of care despite the duty of care to safely manage the goods loaded on the vehicle. Since the plaintiff acquired the right to indemnity against the defendant who is the owner of the defendant's vehicle and the user of the defendant's vehicle in accordance with Article 682 of the Commercial Act, the defendant is obliged to pay the insurance money paid to the plaintiff as the indemnity amount.

3. The above-mentioned evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the instant stone was away from the loading of the Defendant’s vehicle, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to Gap evidence No. 6’s video, it can be seen that the stone of this case was destroyed by sprinking the stone of this case on the expressway while the Defendant was driving on the expressway, and the stone of this case is difficult to be classified into the land.