1. The plaintiff's appeal as to the main claim is dismissed.

2.The preliminary amendments made in exchange for the Court.

1. The plaintiff's grounds of appeal concerning the primary claim by the court of first instance as to the primary claim by the court of first instance are identical to the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment by the court of first instance are justified even if the additional evidence submitted in the court of first instance is presented.

In full view of the various circumstances acknowledged in the first instance trial, it is only a future assumptive situation that the Defendant may claim for reimbursement against the Plaintiff with respect to the damage incurred on the part of the third vehicle, and it cannot be evaluated as “the present risk, apprehension, etc. in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status” required in the lawsuit for confirmation.

This court's explanation of the plaintiff's primary claim is identical to the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it according to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's conjunctive claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff received a self-vehicle damage security from an insurance company for the repair of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Plaintiff directly paid KRW 500,000 to the repairer according to the agreement on self-vehicle damage security under the above contract.

Therefore, the defendant should pay the plaintiff the above repair cost of KRW 500,000 as compensation for damages based on the tort of Article 750 of the Civil Act.

B. According to the evidence No. 16, the fact that a traffic accident, such as the building site for judgment, the attached Forms 1 and 2, does not conflict between the parties, and the fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 500,000 directly to the industrial company on February 5, 2016 for the repair of the Plaintiff’s vehicle destroyed by the said traffic accident.

In addition, the defendant recognizes that the above traffic accident was caused by his own negligence, and there is no argument or proof by the defendant as to the occurrence of the above traffic accident or the expansion of the damage, and there is no circumstance in which the plaintiff can be inferred the plaintiff's negligence on the record.

(2).