1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid under the following paragraph (2) shall be revoked.

2.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with A as to the automobile B (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”) and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with respect to the CE5 vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 16:56 on December 23, 2017, the driver of the Defendant vehicle, driving the Defendant vehicle and driving the Defendant vehicle, and driving the three-lanes of the four-lanes (hereinafter “the instant road”) near the death power plant located in the Gansi-si Area, and driving the two-lanes at the flood of the Dong community service center located in the area of the water zone, while changing the two-lanes into the two-lanes, the driver followed the left side of the Defendant vehicle, even though even though even after the end of the two-lanes of the Plaintiff vehicle, driving the two-lanes of the instant road on the left side of the Defendant vehicle, and shocking the two-lanes and the front gates of the Plaintiff

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On January 5, 2018, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 296,470 in total to D Company, etc., with the repair cost of Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The main point of the party's assertion (i) the accident of this case is that the vehicle driving along the two-lanes and three-lanes of the road of this case due to traffic congestion at the time, but the defendant vehicle driver driving along the three-lanes of the road of this case was not adequate at the distance between the plaintiff vehicle and the front vehicle of the plaintiff vehicle. However, at that time, the vehicle driver of the plaintiff vehicle could not have anticipated that the vehicle of this case will enter the vehicle of this case unfairly in the future of the plaintiff vehicle of this case. Thus, the accident of this case is due to the total negligence of the defendant vehicle driver.

However, for the Plaintiff A, the insured of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.