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 as the original Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with the Defendant with respect to the vehicle A and B for the vehicle B (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with the Defendant with respect to the vehicle Dratf (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. (1) On February 16, 2015, the Defendant vehicle: (a) around 04:35 on February 16, 2015, the following: (b) the 4-lane-type expressway (hereinafter referred to as the “road of this case”) located in the direction of Busan, at a point of 329 km in the direction of Busan.

2) On the other hand, in order to overtake the previous truck, the previous truck was changed to the first one, and during the process, brooms up to the 4th line with the fourth line, and brooms down to the outside of the side (hereinafter “instant preceding accident”).

(2) After approximately 5 minutes and 10 minutes from the time of the occurrence of the instant preceding accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the second line of the instant road, which was shocked with fugitives located far from the point where the instant preceding accident occurred, at approximately 55 meters away from the point where the instant preceding accident occurred.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant subsequent event”). C.

Plaintiff

The plaintiff's vehicle suffered loss due to the occurrence of vehicle loss and the subsequent event of the plaintiff's payment of insurance money, and the plaintiff's vehicle suffered loss due to the straw, etc., and the plaintiff paid KRW 3,837,500 as repair expenses for the plaintiff'

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 9, Eul evidence 9, the fact inquiry results against the Korea Highway Corporation by the court of first instance, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The key issue of the instant case was 1: (a) the Plaintiff was at the time of the instant follow-up event, and was getting off to the rain, and thus, it was difficult for the Plaintiff’s driver to find and avoid fugitives in advance away from the instant road because it was difficult to secure the night view; (b) so, the Plaintiff’s vehicle as to the instant follow-up event did not have any negligence; and (c) only the Defendant’s vehicle’s negligence was 10%.