1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Passenger Vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to D Passenger Vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On September 5, 2019, the Plaintiff’s driver: (a) driven along the two lanes of the four-lane road (hereinafter “the instant accident occurred”); (b) reported the destruction of the surface of the front bank road while driving along the two-lanes of the two-lane road (hereinafter “the instant accident occurred”); and (c) the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped from the rear side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the two-lane; and (b) the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped after the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

On October 2, 2019, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 8,500,000 at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 6, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The occurrence of the instant accident caused damage to the road surface due to rain, and thus, the Plaintiff’s driver as the Plaintiff had no choice but to discover and stop it. The instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s driver’s change of the vehicular road in a sudden manner without complying with the Defendant’s duty of the front-way driver and the duty of ensuring safety distance. Thus, the Defendant’s driver was negligent on the front-way driver

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant, who is the insurer of the defendant vehicle, is entitled to pay 8,500,000 won of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff on behalf of the owner of the vehicle.

2) As to this, the Defendant was negligent at a level of 20% on the Plaintiff’s driver on the road in which the instant accident occurred, and as a driver of the Defendant’s vehicle, the Plaintiff’s driver could not avoid collision with the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

The argument is asserted.

B. 1) The following facts and acceptable as a whole in each video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and Eul evidence No. 1, together with the purport of the entire pleadings.