1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On November 4, 2014, around 09:32, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and is proceeding with the above ground parking lot of 107 front of the Kimpo-dong Mapo-dong Mapo-dong Mapo-dong Mapo-dong Mapo-dong. However, the Defendant’s vehicle parked on the right right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the direction of the running of the Mapo-dong Mapo-dong was faced with the back part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was pro

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). C.

On November 28, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,700,000 as insurance money at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry or video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The plaintiff asserted that the accident in this case occurred due to the sudden breakdown of the plaintiff's vehicle, and the accident in this case occurred due to the previous negligence of the defendant's driver. Since the plaintiff paid the total amount of damages of KRW 3,700,000 due to the accident in this case, the defendant who is the insurer of the defendant's vehicle is obliged to pay the damages amount of the accident in this case and to pay the damages of KRW 3,70,000 due to the accident in this case to the plaintiff who acquired the subrogation of the damage claim, and damages

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the accident in this case occurred by the negligence of the plaintiff driver and the defendant driver who violated the duty of safe driving, and thus, the defendant is liable to bear only the damage corresponding to the ratio of negligence of the defendant driver.

B. We examine the reasoning of the lower judgment and examine the entirety of the evidence duly admitted.