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 a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid contract with respect to A vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle mutual aid contract with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. On May 2, 2016, the Defendant’s vehicle stopped at a point of 254 km in the direction of Seoul, among three-lanes of the 17-lane East Coastal Expressway (hereinafter “victim’s vehicle”) on May 2, 2016, the Defendant’s vehicle stopped at the rear side of the Defendant’s vehicle. The Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped at the rear side of the Defendant’s vehicle. On the same day, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was found to have immediately discovered the damaged vehicle while driving along three-lanes on the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, etc. (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

C. The driver D of the damaged vehicle outside the vehicle affected by the instant accident sustained an injury while avoiding the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the passenger E, F, and G on board the damaged vehicle also sustained an injury.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 3,066,090 with D’s medical expenses and agreed money, KRW 2,618,080 with E’s medical expenses and agreed money, KRW 459,870 with F’s medical expenses and agreed money, KRW 1,525,960 with KRW 7,670 with the total of KRW 1,525,960 with G’s medical expenses and agreed money.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Although the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle, prior to the occurrence of the instant accident, at least 10 meters away from the Defendant’s vehicle due to the breakdown, he/she failed to take any particular safety measures by installing a triangulation car at the vicinity of the Defendant’s vehicle at approximately 5 meters, despite the fact that the Defendant’s vehicle stops on the front of at least 3 lanes, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle was required to install a triangulation car at the rear side of the vehicle pursuant to the Road Traffic Act. The Defendant was making a sudden operation while discovering the Defendant’s vehicle parked on the front side.