1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim as to the above cancellation part is dismissed.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the insurer of the insurance-related vehicle C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is the insurer of the D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On July 29, 2017, around 04:40 on July 29, 2017, the Defendant vehicle involved in the accident of the Defendant vehicle proceeded from the two-lane road front of the F University located in Sin-si E (hereinafter “the instant accident road”) to the port-to-port area, and broomed away from the road, and broomed away from the road.

(hereinafter referred to as “the primary accident”). Due to the primary accident, the telecommunication poles got out of the road and the wires connected to the telecommunication poles died on the road.

C. On July 29, 2017, around 05:25:25, the Plaintiff’s vehicle involved in the accident of the Plaintiff’s vehicle moved on the front side of the instant racing on the instant road, and, at the same time, had the electric wires moved on the bridge of the employees G of the insurance company who was engaged in traffic control in the instant road, and caused the injury to the Plaintiff’s vehicle by going beyond G.

(hereinafter referred to as “the second accident.” From August 24, 2017 to November 9, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 6,183,260 in total as insurance proceeds with G’s medical expenses, etc.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the whole purport of the pleading

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the second accident of the plaintiff's vehicle occurred due to the first accident that caused the electric cable to increase on the road of this case, and thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the insurance money of 6,183,260 won and damages for delay to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the second accident occurred due to the unilateral negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle, and that there is no causation with the first accident.

B. On the ground of the first accident of the judgment, the fact that the cable on the instant road is towed by the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the second accident occurred is as seen earlier.

However, A.