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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is a mutual aid operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with B (hereinafter “Defendant”) on the vehicle B.

B. On June 26, 2017, at around 10:45, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along the two lanes on the five-lane road in front of the building parked in the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the front vehicle was stopped due to the front vehicle while entering the four-lane.

While the Defendant’s vehicle was running on the four-lanes of the above road and was trying to change the three-lanes, the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the front of the Defendant’s vehicle and failed to avoid any defect in stopping, and the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle was shocked on the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

On July 7, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,833,600 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s failure to secure the safety distance, and the negligence of neglecting the duty of the front-time watch is an accident caused by the Defendant’s total negligence.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff who acquired the right of indemnity by subrogation of the insurer under the Commercial Act the amount equivalent to the insurance money paid by the plaintiff

B. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the instant accident occurred due to negligence, which caused the Defendant vehicle to neglect its duty on the front-time watch without securing the safety distance, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, in light of all the circumstances, such as the background of the instant accident, degree of shock and shock, and the situation at the time, known by the evidence as seen above, the instant accident is driven along the lane in which the Plaintiff intended to enter.