1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part of the judgment against the Plaintiff ordering payment is revoked.

2. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the further set-off company and the Acracker vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”). The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B dump truck (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On October 1, 2015, at around 02:10, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was frightened in the direction of the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, while the vehicle was running from the eririririririririririririririririririri Road to the driririririririririririririririririririririririririririgate. The Defendant’s vehicle behind the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not avoid this, and the rear part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked

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

From December 8, 2015 to November 29, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the sum of KRW 22,15,000 for the repair cost of Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident as insurance proceeds.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 6 evidence, Eul's 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleading, or the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's vehicle driven along the road of this case where the plaintiff's vehicle driven along the road of this case, which is a bend of the one-lane road, was driven over the central line, and it was urgent to avoid a conflict with the above bus. The plaintiff's argument that the plaintiff's vehicle driven behind the plaintiff's vehicle, who failed to secure the safety distance with the plaintiff's vehicle, caused the plaintiff's vehicle by neglecting the duty of front-time watching without securing the safety distance with the plaintiff's vehicle, so the accident of this case occurred due to the total negligence of the defendant's vehicle.

B. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, namely, ① the Defendant’s vehicle, in preparation for a case where the previous Plaintiff’s vehicle is rapidly parked, without securing a safe distance to avoid collision with the Plaintiff’s vehicle. ② In particular, the instant vehicle is proceeding along with the instant vehicle.