1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. From December 21, 2017 to January 11, 2018, the Defendant’s KRW 482,120 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. With respect to the Plaintiff’s C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s Vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicles.

B. Around 14:40 on November 14, 2017, the driver of the Defendant vehicle tried to start a vehicle after parking on the back side by the front vehicle and the Defendant vehicle. The driver of the Defendant vehicle did not start a vehicle at once due to the front vehicle and the Defendant vehicle. After the launch of the vehicle, the driver of the vehicle left the vehicle immediately after the launch, resulting in an accident where the part behind the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which immediately stopped, was shocked to the part behind the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On December 6, 2017, the Plaintiff spent KRW 271,900 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. On December 20, 2017, the Plaintiff spent KRW 210,220 as the medical expenses of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driver.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s instant accident occurred by shocking the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was under the stop due to the front of the Defendant’s vehicle, and is caused by the unilateral negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the insurance money of KRW 482,120 (210,220 of the cost of repairing the vehicle, KRW 271,90 of the cost of repairing the vehicle), and damages for delay.

B. Some negligence on the Plaintiff’s vehicle, such as that the Defendant’s vehicle is too close to the Defendant’s vehicle.

Furthermore, considering the fact that shock caused by the instant accident was very insignificant, and the results of the analysis of the Madmo Program (MAYMO) program conducted by the Ulsan-nam branch of the Road Traffic Authority, there is no causal link between the treatment costs incurred by the Plaintiff and the repair costs of the Plaintiff vehicle.

3. Determination

A. According to the above fact of recognition of liability for damages, the defendant neglected his duty of care to prevent collision with other vehicles by viewing the rear side while driving on the road.