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

2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation part.

1. Basic facts

A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On March 21, 2015, at around 01:00, the Defendant’s vehicle driven along the two lanes near the northwest of the Chungcheongnam-dong, Mapo-gu, Seoul, along the two-lanes, along the two-lanes in the two-lanes in the two-lanes, the vehicle stopped across the side and the two-lanes in the two-lanes between the two-lane and the three-lanes while driving an emergency, etc. at a speed. The Plaintiff’s vehicle driving the two-lanes of the Defendant vehicle.

C. On April 28, 2015, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 15,014,11 at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 10 (including additional numbers, if any) or video, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's argument argues that, in addition to the driver's negligence on the part of the plaintiff's driver who neglected the duty of front-time watch, the driver's negligence on the part of the defendant's driver who failed to properly perform safety measures such as installing a triangulation belt on the front side of the defendant's vehicle caused the accident in this case, the defendant is obligated to pay the amount of indemnity equivalent to 7,507,050 won out of the repair cost of the plaintiff's vehicle and damages for delay.

B. The following circumstances, which can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the above facts admitted and the above evidence, namely, that the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not turn on the head of the vehicle at the time of the instant accident, and that the driver’s efforts to operate the brake system or to avoid collision with the Defendant’s vehicle cannot be seen at all, and that part of the vehicle of the Defendant’s vehicle was on the two-lanes, but other vehicles operated the two-lane prior to the Plaintiff’s vehicle are without conflict with the Defendant’s vehicle.