1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the insurer of the C vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant paid KRW 2,896,500 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on July 22, 2018, because the Defendant, which had been prior to the C vehicle on the C vehicle on the C vehicle on the C vehicle on the C vehicle on the D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”). On July 5, 2017, the Defendant, who was facing the C vehicle on the D vehicle on the Gandong-dong Gyeongdong-dong Highway, was shocking the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the part of the Defendant’s vehicle on the road, and accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,896,500.

However, the above accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who neglected his duty of care, such as Jeonju. Thus, the plaintiff claims damages for delay from the day after the date of payment of insurance money to the defendant pursuant to the third party subrogation doctrine of Article 682-3 of the Commercial Act.

B. With respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Defendant is the insurer who entered into each automobile insurance contract with the Defendant, the fact that the Defendant was operating the Defendant’s vehicle on the Heungdong-dong Highway on July 5, 2017, the fact that the Defendant’s mainnet part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was destroyed by an insular material at the above time and place, and the fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,896,50 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on January 22, 2018 that the Plaintiff did not dispute between the parties, or that the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,896,50 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on January 22, 2018, it is recognized that the above recognition and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone alone are insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant’s vehicle’s non-objected objects conflict with the Plaintiff’s vehicle as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

2. Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be concluded.