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. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C vehicles owned by B (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”).

B. On March 7, 2017, at around 22:50, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driven, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was destroyed by a traffic accident where the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, was shocked by the Defendant crossinging the Defendant without permission over the center separation zone, while driving along the Plaintiff’s exclusive motorway near South-si, Namyang-si, Gyeonggi-do along the one-lane in Seoul in the direction of a smooth human body in Seoul.

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

On May 29, 2017, the Plaintiff paid the insurance money equivalent to KRW 6,220,000 (excluding KRW 200,000 on his own charge) at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in relation to the instant accident.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap's 1 through 6 (including virtual number), and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s fault, which illegally crossed over the median zone, on the motorway that is prohibited from crossing by pedestrians. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, who subrogated and acquired the damage claim owned by the insured by paying the insurance proceeds of the instant accident, the amount equivalent to the automobile repair cost, as well as damages for delay.

B. At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant asserted that, in order to move to a safe place after being located on the instant road at the time of the instant accident, the vehicle was set up on the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the speed of 80km/h above the limit of 40km/h while driving the instant road in a safe manner.

Therefore, the Defendant did not make any error that contributed to the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damage, and there is no proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s damage and the Defendant’s breach of duty of care.