1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

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. Around 16:00 on July 3, 2015, the Plaintiff’s vehicle collisions between the previous Defendant’s vehicle and the rear gateer of the C vehicle (hereinafter “first accident”) while driving along one-lane of the two-lane roads in the carbon tunnel (218.6 km in the mid-to-face 2000 square meters away from the side of the side of the road), which is located in the two sides of the two sides of the two sides of the instant road (hereinafter “the second accident”). The collisions between the D vehicle prior to the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “victim”) and the E vehicle (hereinafter “the second accident”).

C. By November 2, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 7,600,000 insurance money under the name of the repair cost, etc. of damaged vehicles due to the second accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1-1 to 56, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The plaintiff asserts that since the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle contributed to the occurrence of the second accident, the defendant, as the insurer of the defendant vehicle, has the obligation to claim for reimbursement to the plaintiff the amount stated in the purport of the claim corresponding to the ratio of the driver of the defendant vehicle among the insurance proceeds paid by the plaintiff as the repair cost

However, in full view of the statements and images set forth in Gap evidence 6 and Eul evidence 1 (including the paper number), it can be recognized that the first accident occurred after the driver of the plaintiff vehicle who collisioned with the defendant vehicle due to the previous negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle who caused the collision between the defendant vehicle and C by neglecting the duty of the front-time care, and that the second accident occurred due to the shock, and there is no other circumstance to deem that the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle contributed to the occurrence of the second accident.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim.