1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

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

B. Around 17:40 on August 21, 2014, the Defendant’s vehicle turned into a broom of the plaza south of the Hanam-IC, and the front part of the vehicle turned into a two-lane, and the rear part was stopped over a one-lane. The Plaintiff’s vehicle going into a one-lane back at the rear side of the Hanam-IC room, and the front part of the vehicle shocked the back part of the vehicle’s right-hand panion.

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

On September 17, 2014, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 2,350,200 in total with the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements or images, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred due to the violation of the duty of safe driving of the driver of the defendant vehicle, and the driver of the plaintiff vehicle could not avoid the defendant vehicle who entered the vehicle in this case from the three-lane to the one-lane. This is ultimately attributable to the whole negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle. Thus, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is obliged to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of KRW 2,350,200 of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff as the amount of indemnity.

In regard to this, the defendant, after a considerable period of time has elapsed since the defendant's vehicle was cut off into a broom, stopped the defendant's vehicle. The accident in this case was caused by the whole negligence of the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle who did not secure a safe distance while driving on the road, and therefore, the defendant did not have a duty to respond to the plaintiff's claim for reimbursement.

3. The following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff’s research data, which are acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2.