1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded a liability insurance contract with respect to the roller vehicle for construction owned by B (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

Plaintiff

On December 2, 2016, at around 06:32, Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, according to the two-lanes of the two-lane road in front of the road maintenance work site, the vehicles flown from the defendant vehicle due to the failure of management in the middle of the two-lane road in front of the luxungcheon-si Road 1, Seongdong-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City, along the internal circulation, conflict with C vehicles that flown along the ice plates where water flows out of the defendant vehicle and flown along one lane.

(hereinafter “instant accident.” By December 28, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 14,169,000 in total to the Plaintiff’s vehicle and C vehicle repair cost due to the instant accident. As such, the Defendant, who is the liability insurance for the Defendant’s vehicle, is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the said insurance proceeds to the Plaintiff.

2. According to the images of Gap evidence Nos. 2-1 and Gap evidence Nos. 5, part of the two-lanes of the point of the instant accident was found, and the defendant vehicle was parked on the right side of the two-lane construction site.

However, in light of the fact that the ice area of the road is too wide to be seen as being generated by water flowing from the stringer vehicle for construction, and that there is a lot of water accumulated in the water tank, etc. in which the point of accident was passed by considering the ice area or form of the accident site in the water tank, etc., it is difficult to recognize that the ice plate was generated on the road of the accident site as water flowing from the Defendant’s vehicle as water flowing from the Defendant’s vehicle, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

The plaintiff's assertion does not have any further reason as to the remainder of the issue.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit.