1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation part.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On March 24, 2018, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle runs two-lanes around the four-lanes near the Hansi-si East apartment zone, there was an accident where the front glass part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was destroyed on the wind where the Defendant’s vehicle, which was going on the three-lane right side of the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, followed the sloping water that was far away from the road (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On May 3, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,584,00 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, excluding its own shares.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s 1 through 3, Gap’s 4-1, 2, Gap’s 6, Eul’s 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that (i) the defendant's vehicle neglected the front line, and the defendant's vehicle should proceed by using four lanes which are the edge of a large dump truck, but the defendant's vehicle fell from the defendant's vehicle due to excessive negligence while using the three lanes, or shocked the fallens on the road and caused the accident of this case.

Shebly, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred in an inevitable state where the defendant's vehicle cannot avoid falling on the road.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments revealed earlier, and ① the place where the instant accident occurred is a road on which the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle moved in relatively high speed, and the falling water appears difficult to detect the vehicle while driving the vehicle even if it faithfully performs the duty of front-time care as a small color fluor, and ② the falling water contacted by the Defendant’s vehicle is the Defendant’s vehicle.