1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff equivalent to the amount ordered to be additionally paid shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement for C vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement for D vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. On February 14, 2018, around 00:25, the Defendant’s vehicle driven three lanes (including bus exclusive lanes) in front of Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, the same direction, and the front vehicle that is driven by the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving on the front side of the same lane did not avoid any defect due to the preceding vehicle that is driven by the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving on the front side of the same lane, and shocked the left rear part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle into the front side of the Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On March 8, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,712,000 for the repair cost of Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident as mutual aid.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 10 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. When a driver of any motor vehicle that finds a judgment on the right to indemnity of a plaintiff follows another motor vehicle traveling in the same direction, he/she shall maintain a distance from the motor vehicle traveling ahead of it to avoid any collisions with the latter when the latter stops suddenly.

(1) Article 19(1) of the Road Traffic Act provides that the driver of the defendant vehicle has a duty of care to safely drive the vehicle by securing a safe distance in preparation for the case where the plaintiff vehicle, who is the preceding vehicle, stops suddenly, while continuing to drive the vehicle without being bound accordingly despite the fact that the operation of the plaintiff vehicle, etc. was occupied by the operation of the vehicle, etc., and the accident of this case is deemed to have occurred, and the safety distance is not sufficiently secured or the driver neglected the duty to stop on the front bank by properly examining the movement of the plaintiff vehicle, which stops on the front bank.