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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a person who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On January 20, 2017, at around 04:25, the Defendant’s vehicle driven the two-lanes of the Olympic Games in the vicinity of Siksan-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, and stopped on four-lanes after stringing snow paths to the right-hand strings as in the Olympic Games, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving four-lanes shocked the right-hand part of the Defendant’s vehicle in the front part of the upper right-hand part.

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

On March 30, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,520,000 (the self-charges of KRW 200,000) as insurance money under the name of the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) since the defendant's vehicle driving along the plaintiff's two lanes has shocked the plaintiff's vehicle driving along the four lanes from the wind of operating the brakes and driving along the four lanes, the accident of this case occurred by the whole negligence of the defendant's driver. Therefore, the defendant's vehicle driver shall pay to the plaintiff the insurance money of 2,520,000 won paid by the plaintiff and the damages for delay thereof as compensation. 2) The defendant's vehicle driver is obliged to pay the plaintiff the insurance money of 2,520,000 won paid by the plaintiff as compensation. If the defendant's vehicle driving with the preceding defendant's two lanes stops due to the snow accident, it is necessary to secure a sufficient safety distance and avoid a stop or a three-lane while driving at the front, so it did not properly perform the duty of safe driving and caused the accident of this case, and the driver of the defendant's vehicle did not take safety measures, so the defendant's vehicle is exempted from liability or is liable only for negligence of 10%.

B. The plaintiff 1's vehicle and defendant.