1. The part of the first instance judgment against the Plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 20, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a long-term siren contract with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) on May 20, 2016 between the Plaintiff and D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) for FW 320D motor vehicles under the name of the Plaintiff’s birth, E (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”). While the Plaintiff actually operated the instant motor vehicle, the Plaintiff did not describe the Plaintiff as the designated driver at the time of the instant contract.

B. The Plaintiff concluded a motor vehicle insurance contract between “G Co., Ltd.” and the insurance period from May 19, 2016 to May 19, 2017 (Renewal one year thereafter), “H Co., Ltd.” on May 19, 2018, and the insurance period from May 19, 2018 to May 19, 2019, respectively, with a special agreement stipulating that the Plaintiff may drive at least 26 years of age.

(c)

On August 14, 2018, while the Plaintiff was driving the instant motor vehicle in light-si of Gyeonggi-do, the Plaintiff was faced with a traffic accident that causes the instant motor vehicle to be cut off and destroyed on the broom. The Plaintiff spent 12,495,473 won by September 17, 2018, including 110,000 won for towing the instant motor vehicle, 11,830,373 won for repairing expenses, and 55,100 won for rental of the instant motor vehicle, and 12,495,473 won for repairing expenses.

[Reasons for Recognition] No. 3, 4, 6, or 10 of Gap's evidence (including branch numbers) and the purport of the whole theory

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of the parties is the cause of the instant claim. The Defendant promised to designate the Plaintiff as a designated driver by adding the Plaintiff to D, and sent a copy of the Plaintiff’s driver’s license to the Defendant on May 20, 2016. The Defendant trusted that he dealt with the procedures for designating an additional driver and operated the instant motor vehicle, and the Defendant has a duty of care to perform the procedures and verify the result thereof.

That is the case.