1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff equivalent to the amount ordered under paragraph (2) shall be revoked.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to the automobile D (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On February 8, 2018, around 21:56, the Plaintiff’s vehicle shocked the same direction at the intersection in the original city, the same direction as the intersection in the front of the same lane, and the rear part of the Defendant’s vehicle driving in the same lane, with the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). During this process, E, passenger F, G, and Defendant 1’s passengers were injured.

C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 1,299,820 in total to E, F, and G for medical expenses and agreed fees incurred from the instant accident, and KRW 3,902,820 in total to H until April 23, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's right to indemnity

(a) When a driver of any motor vehicle travels behind the motor vehicle traveling in the same direction, he/she shall maintain a speed that makes it possible to avoid any collisions with the motor vehicle traveling ahead of it when the latter stops suddenly (Article 19(1) of the Road Traffic Act), and he/she shall not make an urgent brake, such as sudden stop of the motor vehicle driving or reducing the speed of the motor vehicle, unless it is necessary to prevent any danger and other unavoidable circumstances (Article 19(4) of the Road Traffic Act);

In other words, the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle has the duty of care to safely drive the Defendant vehicle by securing the safety distance in preparation for the case where the Defendant vehicle, who is the preceding vehicle, stops suddenly, and even though the operation of the Defendant vehicle, etc. has been occupied, it is deemed that the vehicle continued to progress without speed, and thus, it neglected the duty of front-time watch.