1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a driver D at the time of the driver's vehicle (hereinafter "Plaintiff's vehicle") and the defendant is a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance company of the vehicle E (hereinafter "Defendant's vehicle").

B. On March 7, 2016, at around 06:50, the Defendant’s vehicle: (a) concealed the front part of the F vehicle F that was stopped on the road (hereinafter “ once driver G”); (b) in the front of the said vehicle, the vehicle was pushed back of the H vehicle (I at the time driver I at the time; hereinafter “second vehicle”) in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle being pushed down.

(hereinafter referred to as “first accident”). (c)

After the accident, the plaintiff's vehicle was stopped due to the first accident, and the remaining parts of the defendant's vehicle was concealed.

(hereinafter referred to as “the second accident”) d.

The Defendant paid 1,168,570 won to the driver G of the vehicle, and 1,905,320 won to the driver of the vehicle, each of which was paid 3,073,890 won.

E. On November 3, 2018, the Defendant filed a motion with the J Review Committee for deliberation, and the said Review Committee deliberated and deliberated on the Plaintiff’s indemnity amounting to KRW 1,536,945 (hereinafter “instant deliberation and resolution”) by recognizing the Plaintiff’s liability ratio to KRW 50%.

F. On November 20, 2018, the Plaintiff paid the amount of KRW 1,536,940 to the Defendant as a reimbursement, and filed the instant lawsuit.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 through 11, Eul’s each entry or video, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In spite of the Plaintiff’s second accident, the Defendant’s vehicle did not repair the vehicle Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, the Plaintiff did not bear liability for damages against the driver of the vehicle No. 1 and 2.