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 an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On January 9, 2019, around 15:00, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding along the one-lane of the road near the seat of the body located in the Geumdong-dong, Busan. However, the part of the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was destroyed due to the shocking of the lower part of the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “the instant stone”) near the Defendant’s vehicle running along the two-lane of the same road.

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

On March 28, 2019, the Plaintiff paid 534,820 won to the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in accordance with the automobile insurance contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 7, Eul evidence No. 2-1 and 2, video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case was loaded on the defendant vehicle and caused the accident to shock the defendant vehicle, while the plaintiff acquired the right to indemnity against the defendant who is the insurer of the defendant vehicle pursuant to Article 682 of the Commercial Act. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the total amount of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff as compensation for damages to the plaintiff as compensation for indemnity.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserted that the instant stone was far away from the road regardless of the Defendant’s vehicle, and that it does not fall away from the loading of the Defendant vehicle, and even if the Defendant’s vehicle used the instant stone, it cannot be deemed as the negligence of the Defendant’s driver.

3. Determination

A. First, as to whether the instant stones fell away from the loading of the Defendant vehicle, the descriptions or images of Gap evidence Nos. 1, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Gap evidence Nos. 4, which seem to correspond thereto, are all the unilateral arguments of the Plaintiff.