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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with CK7 vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”). The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with Dump trucks (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. On August 16, 2018, at around 07:45, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along one-lane of the two-lanes of the national highways front of the ESA in Gwangju City, Gwangju, where the front glass of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged (hereinafter “instant accident”). At the time, the Defendant’s vehicle was driving ahead of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the two-lanes of the said road.

C. On September 28, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 740,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 9, video, purport of whole pleading

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident happens against the Defendant’s driver, who violated the duty to manage the goods loaded prior to driving on the road so that they do not fall on the road, due to the former negligence by the Defendant’s driver, who caused the collision with the front left of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the indemnity amount of KRW 740,000 and the damages for delay pursuant to Article 682(1) of the Commercial Act.

3. The fact that the Defendant’s vehicle, which is a dump truck installed at the time, was running along the two lanes prior to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, is recognized as follows: Provided, however, even in the case of the Plaintiff’s film, it is not clear whether the stone, which was the front glass of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, left away from the Defendant’s vehicle’s vehicle’s loading, and the dump was diminished while the Defendant’s driving of the vehicle.

Even if we look at the distance of the plaintiff and defendant vehicle in light of shocking location, it is physical that the stone immediately turns back to the front glass of the plaintiff vehicle.