1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On December 13, 2014, at around 17:20, the Defendant’s vehicle was running along the two-lanes of the two-lane road in Pyeongtaek-gun, the two-lanes of the front D, which was located in Gyeonggi-gun, and, as a result, the vehicle was rapidly stopped, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle started to move its course from the two-lane to the one-lane to the one-lane according to the Defendant’s vehicle and led the Plaintiff’s vehicle to tow the Defendant vehicle.

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

On January 8, 2015, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 4,836,00 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The following circumstances revealed by the above facts and evidence revealed: (a) before reaching the point of the accident in this case, the Plaintiff’s driver was driving the Defendant’s driver’s behavior, and was believed to have been aware of such circumstances; (b) the Defendant’s driver was driving the vehicle at a speed lower than the other vehicles in the vicinity; and (c) the Defendant’s driver was driving the vehicle at a speed above all the other vehicles in the vicinity; (d) before the accident in this case, the Defendant’s driver changed the course from the two lanes to the one-lane, and stopped the vehicle while driving the vehicle while turning the vehicle on a sudden emergency, etc.; and (e) the Defendant’s driver continued to drive the vehicle more than the Defendant’s vehicle at the time, and thus, there was a risk of conflict with the previous Defendant’s vehicle.

In full view of the fact that the accident in this case does not seem to have any other circumstance to rapidly stop, the negligence and the prevention of danger of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle who operated the vehicle by the defendant without maintaining the safety distance, or other inevitable circumstances.