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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the vehicle C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the vehicle D (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. At around 15:50 on May 2, 2019, E driven the Defendant’s vehicle, driving the front line of the G oil station located in F in the city of harmony, driving the front line of the G oil station located in F in both reduction and exemption offices, with a view to a view to an embankment from the room of both reduction and exemption offices, and the rear part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle entering the front line of the moving direction to G oil station located in the left side of the moving direction was shocked by the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

Due to the instant accident, E suffered bodily injury, such as ethropical surgery, external surgery, ethropical surgery, ethropical surgery, ethropical surgery, ethropical surgery, ethropical surgery, internal and ceiling ethropical surgery, ethropical ethrhesion, fropical surgery, ethropical surgery, ethropical framework, ethropical ethrhesion, and ethropical surgery, and the Defendant paid 31,744,930 won in total from July 5, 2019 to September 5, 2019 as E’s hospital treatment costs.

From September 5, 2019 to September 26, 2019, the Plaintiff paid 18,573,480 won to the Defendant as advance payment of indemnity for the said accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements, Gap's 2 through 4, 6 through 8, Eul's 2 through 11 (including each number), video and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s instant accident occurred due to the total negligence in drilling the Plaintiff’s vehicle while driving slowly in a state where the Defendant’s driver neglected the front-time watch and failed to secure a safe distance. As such, the Plaintiff did not be liable to compensate for damages caused by the Plaintiff’s injury, and accordingly, the Defendant is not liable.