1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with A New Zealand (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is a dump truck (hereinafter “Defendant”) who entered into an automobile insurance contract with Bump truck.

B. On July 6, 2016, around 09:50 on July 6, 2016, the Plaintiff’s vehicle destroyed the Plaintiff’s front glass and the Plaintiff’s front glass (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) At the time, the Defendant’s vehicle was proceeding in one way in the same direction as the Plaintiff’s vehicle immediately before.

C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 275,700 on July 15, 2016 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 3, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 3, 5, 6, Gap evidence 7-1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant accident did not take measures to prevent an accident, such as covering the Defendant’s driver with a cover on the boarding box, and caused a difference in the stone with the loading of the Defendant’s vehicle. As such, the Defendant, who is the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the repair cost and the damages for delay thereof paid to the Plaintiff with the indemnity. (ii) The Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with on the grounds that there is no relation between the object damaged the Plaintiff’s front glass and the Defendant’s vehicle.

B. First of all, it is not sufficient to recognize the images of the evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 7-1 through 4, and No. 8 as to whether the object damaged the front glass of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was set away from the Defendant’s vehicle, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.