1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. The circumstances leading up to the instant accident are as follows.

On August 26, 2019, at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle (Plaintiff-Appellant) owned by Defendant C, and around 15:47 August 26, 2019, the vehicle of the Plaintiff was towing the Defendant vehicle, which was parked in the two-lane of the vehicle as the vehicle, while the vehicle was straight along the two-lanes of the road of this case, in the case of the collision of the two-lanes in front of the Do forest road in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan City (hereinafter “the road of this case”).

(hereinafter “instant accident”). On September 5, 2019, the Plaintiff paid insurance money to the insured of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on September 5, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,850,000 for the insurance money due to the Plaintiff’s total loss of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. [Grounds for recognition] Each description of Party A’s evidence 1 through 4, Party B’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to failure to take safety measures such as safety signs or receptions on the rear side by the driver of the Defendant vehicle who stopped due to the breakdown, and thus, at least the fault ratio of the Defendant vehicle driver should be recognized.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s vehicle was forced to stop due to the breakdown is a place where it is possible to stop, and the instant road is a general road where the obligation to display the vehicle due to the malfunction is not applicable, and the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle strokes down without using the brake system at all due to driving. The instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s total negligence on the part of the Plaintiff’s driver who violated the duty to stop and stop.

3. Determination

A. Article 66 of the Road Traffic Act provides for measures to prevent another drilling accident in advance, since the vehicle passes at a rapid speed in the case of an expressway or motorway, so that it can give prior notice of the emergency from a distance to a prior point of time to reduce the speed, and thus the provision provides for measures to prevent another drilling accident.