1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

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

B. On June 8, 2017, around 16:15, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was running one lane of the second line road in front of the driver’s seat of the Defendant’s vehicle at the front side of the impulse, and the front side of the driver’s seat of the Defendant vehicle was running through open windows open on the rear side of the driver’s seat of the Defendant vehicle at the front side of the front side of the driver’s seat. On the front side of the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was driven by the front part of the driver’s seat of the Plaintiff vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

After the instant accident, until August 14, 2017, the Plaintiff paid the respective insurance proceeds of KRW 2,119,350, and KRW 1,323,490 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driver’s medical expenses and the agreed amount for the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Items A 1 through 5, Eul 1 through 4 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The following circumstances revealing the purport of the entire argument in the evidence found in the above facts admitted as negligence ratio. In other words, the driver of the defendant vehicle caused a sudden trouble by running a window with the rear seat window in the shape of a dog, and in this situation, it can be said that the driver caused a traffic trouble by driving it with an open window. ② The driver of the plaintiff vehicle did not secure a sufficient safety distance compared to the rapid operation of the defendant vehicle, which is the preceding vehicle, due to the failure to perform the duty of the front stoping, not only found the emergency, etc., but also did not immediately find the vehicle following the defendant moving on a speed prior to the operation of the road, but also did not take measures such as speed reduction, etc., due to the occurrence of the above sudden situation, but also did not take measures such as speed reduction, etc.