1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with A and B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with C (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. At around 5:30 on January 20, 2014, the Defendant: (a) driven the two-lanes of the 234km road at the location of the Yando 2nd line at the location of the Yando Do 234km in the Yando Gyeong-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si; and (b) caused the string part of the string part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped on the two-lane, with the string part of the Defendant’s string part.

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

On August 20, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,190,000 to the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle A as insurance proceeds.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's evidence 1 to 6 (if there are additional numbers, including lot numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred when the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was driving on an expressway, stops on the side because of the decline on the ice iceway and stopped on the side, and after five minutes, there was no time for the Plaintiff to take preventive measures to avoid the instant accident after the first towing, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in a situation where the vehicle was not driven due to the ice on the road, so it was difficult for the Plaintiff to prevent the occurrence of the instant accident even if the Plaintiff’s vehicle performed the safety measures.

Ultimately, the instant accident is the main cause of the failure to perform the duty of front-time watch and the duty of safety distance on the part of the Defendant, and it is difficult to see that the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is larger than the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seek reimbursement of the amount

3. In full view of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 8 through 10 and the overall purport of the pleadings, the defendant vehicle is with the plaintiff vehicle.