1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On March 18, 2016, at around 19:37, the Defendant’s vehicle shocked the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was located in the two-lanes while changing the three-lane lines from the three-lanes in front of the veckco in Busan Shipping Daegu to the two-lanes.

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

The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to set the negligence ratio between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s driver of the instant vehicle to 20%:80%.

On July 21, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 738,500 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle with respect to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 6, images, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s vehicle shocked the front and rear part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the rear beer and back part of the vehicle.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 738,500 with the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

The driver of the defendant vehicle was exempted from liability for damages of 590,800 won equivalent to 80% of his fault among damages equivalent to the above repair cost.

As such, the defendant, who is the insurer of the defendant vehicle, should pay 590,800 won to the plaintiff pursuant to Article 682 of the Commercial Act.

B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant's vehicle had been flicked with the front left door of the plaintiff's vehicle as a flick, and only flicked with the front left door of the plaintiff's vehicle as a flick, and there was no shock between the front front rear part of the plaintiff's vehicle and the rear part of the back part of the plaintiff's vehicle. As such, the part is already destroyed for a long time regardless of the accident in this case.

Therefore, the defendant vehicle paid 261,00 won for the repair of the back door on the front side of the plaintiff vehicle. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for reimbursement is without merit.

3. Determination

A. The instant case.