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 the Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) for the vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On February 13, 2016, around 20:50 on February 13, 2016, the Defendant’s vehicle driven the two-lanes of the shooting distance of Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul, with the front section of the Plaintiff’s vehicle running ahead of the Defendant’s vehicle on the front section of the Defendant’s vehicle due to negligence, which neglected the duty of front watch and did not secure the safety distance.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

Plaintiff

The insured of the vehicle repaired the replacement of the backer of the Plaintiff vehicle with the backer and the backer, e-mail, crowdfunding, and white panel, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,604,000 as its repair cost on April 12, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries and images of Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the accident of this case occurred due to negligence of neglecting the front-time watch of the driver of the defendant vehicle and not securing the safety distance. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages equivalent to the repair cost of the plaintiff vehicle damaged by the accident of this case.

The Plaintiff, as an insurer, paid the repair cost of KRW 4,604,00 and acquired by subrogation the right to claim damages against the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 4,604,00 and delay damages therefrom, barring any special circumstances.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts that the instant accident was an excessive repair or excessive repair by the Plaintiff, even though only the damage of the driver is related to the instant accident due to a minor contact accident, by means of the replacement of the energy business shocker and the exhaustr.

However, the background of the accident in this case and the degree of shock that the plaintiff's vehicle received, which can be known in the descriptions and images of the evidence Nos. 2 through 10.