1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

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

B. At around 18:00 on April 11, 2014, A, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle parked in the Army Training Facility of Seosan-si, Seosan-si, the front part of the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle running along the parking lot was shocked into the back part of the lower part on the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while getting out of the parking line.

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

On July 3, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 497,700 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the party's assertion is that the accident of this case occurred entirely due to the negligence of the defendant vehicle in this case, since the accident of this case occurred, even though the defendant vehicle was at the time when the vehicle was at the time when the plaintiff vehicle was at the time stopped on the part of the defendant vehicle driving in the way while the vehicle was at the time, the vehicle was at the right time without the front-time vehicle, and therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay 479,700 won of the insurance money paid at the repair cost of the

In this case, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff's assertion that the accident in this case is entirely due to the negligence of the defendant's vehicle is unfair since the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle's fault ratio were accepted by the defendant's claim, and the plaintiff's claim that the accident in this case is entirely due to the negligence of the defendant's vehicle is justified.

(b) Each description of the judgment feet, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including the number with each number), and the purport of the entire pleading in video.