1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1.The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, on the statements and images set forth in Gap evidence 1 to 3, Gap evidence 6 and 7:

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”). The Defendant is a mutual aid operator who has entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to C buses (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Vehicles”).

B. On October 23, 2016, around 12:55, the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped on the crosswalks installed immediately before the intersection, when the signal of the front bank was changed to a yellow light, while driving the four-lane of the 6-lanes along the 6-lane road near the new road intersection in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, to an intersection for active duty service.

At that time, the Defendant’s vehicle, which was proceeding in the same direction following the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was immediately operated to report the suspension of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, but did not immediately stop the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and concealed the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle to the front part of the vehicle.

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

By December 29, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 10,06,00 in total (the amount of KRW 500,000 on its own contributions) for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case was caused by the former negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who followed the accident, such as the failure of safety distance and the violation of the duty to stop on the front side. Thus, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff should pay the full amount of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff with the indemnity and the damages for its delay. 2) As to this, the defendant, since the plaintiff vehicle had already entered the crosswalk before the signal transmission to the front side was changed to yellow, it was a situation where the plaintiff's vehicle entered the intersection just before it was changed to a yellow, it was at the speed of crossing promptly, and there was a negligence of stopping the vehicle above the crosswalk, and such negligence of the