1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the insurer of the insurance-related vehicle C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is the insurer of the D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. (1) On October 31, 2017, around 18:10 on October 31, 2017, the road of this case is the road of this case, hereinafter “the road of this case”).

(B) In addition, the Plaintiff’s front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was stopped due to being pushed ahead of it, such as the left-hand side of the Jindo road at the scene of the accident, was shocked by the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “first accident”).

2) After the first accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle intending to move the Defendant vehicle to the future after the first accident, such as the right side of the map on the site of the accident, shocked the telecommunication pole, which is located on the right side of the road.

(hereinafter referred to as “the second accident”). (c)

On July 13, 2018, the Plaintiff paid the Korea Electric Power Corporation KRW 9,953,010 for damage compensation due to damage to electric poles caused by the second accident, and paid KRW 384,00 to the Korea Electric Power Corporation on July 16, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 3, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion that the plaintiff, the insurer of the plaintiff vehicle, paid KRW 10,337,010 in total with insurance money, etc., as the second accident of the plaintiff vehicle occurred due to the second accident of the plaintiff vehicle, and the defendant, the insurer of the defendant vehicle, is obligated to pay the plaintiff the above KRW 10,337,010 and the damages for delay thereof. Accordingly, the defendant paid the whole damages of the plaintiff vehicle caused by the first accident, and the second accident is caused by the driver of the plaintiff vehicle without stopping the operation of the vehicle, and there is no causal relationship with the first accident.

B. The Defendant’s vehicle was shocked by the first accident of the judgment.