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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has concluded a vehicle mutual aid contract with respect to B towing vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On June 17, 2017, around 21:30, the Plaintiff’s vehicle suffered an accident where the part of the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged due to the non-refluent steel material, while driving along the two-lanes along the two-lanes of the 2nd parallel of the 2nd parallel of the 2nd parallel along the lower parallel of the 2nd parallel of the 2nd parallel of the 2nd parallel of the 2nd parallel of the 2nd parallel of the 2nd parallel of the 2nd parallel of the 33

C. On July 10, 2017, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 492,00 in total with the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion occurred by an unexplosive steel material that fell away from the loading of the Defendant’s vehicle. Since the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was driven on the side of the Defendant’s vehicle falls under an inevitable accident that cannot be avoided at all, the Defendant should claim the full amount of KRW 492,00 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the fall of the Defendant’s vehicle, since the Defendant did not entirely carry things that could fall on the road at the time of the instant accident.

However, even if the Defendant’s vehicle was not found or failed to avoid the accident, in light of the fact that the instant accident was likely to occur because the fallen is protruding to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, while the Defendant’s vehicle was going through a down-road, it cannot be deemed that there was any negligence even if it was not found that the Defendant’s vehicle did not discover the falling matter or failed to avoid it.

3. We examine the judgment, the above evidence and the statements and images of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 5, and the whole pleadings.