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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff as an insurer is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A for its owned B vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with C (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. Around 20:00 on January 18, 2016, the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped in the direction of the left angle line while driving on the direction of the public health center in the direction of the library entrance distance, Hanra Library, a two-lane road (hereinafter “instant road”).

C. At the time, the Defendant’s vehicle was proceeding behind the Plaintiff’s vehicle, but failed to secure a sufficient safety distance, and caused the Plaintiff’s failure to stop or avoid the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and as a result, the front left side of the Defendant’s vehicle and front front front wheels of the Plaintiff’s vehicle were shocked.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

The Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for deliberation on the dispute over the reimbursement of automobile insurance under the non-life insurance association (the Defendant spent a total of KRW 7,180,000 at the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle). As a result of the deliberation, the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle was finally determined at 20% and 80%.

Accordingly, the plaintiff paid 1,436,00 won (the amount equivalent to 20% of 7,180,000 won) as the amount of indemnity to the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 2 and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In the event that the Plaintiff’s assertion at the time the instant accident occurred, the driver of the vehicle following the instant accident, while maintaining a safe distance with the previous vehicle, has a duty of care to look at the operation status of the previous vehicle.

Nevertheless, the accident of this case occurred due to negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle.