1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”).

B. On June 28, 2016, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is driving along one lane between the two lanes in front of Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, Gangwon-do around 14:00.

The part concerning the rear part of the Defendant’s E-Motor vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”) during the stopping was shocked with the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. After the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,515,570 to the Defendant with medical expenses and the agreed amount by December 20, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry and video of Gap evidence 1 to 3, 7 to 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. After receiving insurance proceeds from the instant accident between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, the Defendant agreed to return the insurance proceeds received when it is found that the Plaintiff had no liability for damages, such as the policyholder.

However, it is difficult to view that the Defendant suffered bodily injury due to the instant accident in light of the police’s investigation results, etc., the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 3,515,570 already paid to the Plaintiff in accordance with the said agreement.

B. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 6, the police determined that the defendant was not injured due to the accident in this case based on the results of traffic accident analysis through Madra (MAYO) program.

However, the following circumstances, which can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions and images of evidence Nos. 10, 12, and 13, and evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., (i) although the shock caused by the instant accident appears to be somewhat insignificant, the shock to a certain extent is deemed to have been transmitted to the Defendant, and (ii) the Defendant visited the hospital around October 38, 2016, which is the day following the instant accident, and received treatment at the hospital.