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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to C Buses (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On December 26, 2014, around 15:50 on December 26, 2014, the Plaintiff’s vehicle caused an accident involving passengers F, who were on board the Plaintiff’s vehicle, by making a sudden operation on the road near the building E-gu in Sungnam-si.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

By June 5, 2017, the Plaintiff paid a mutual-aid amount of KRW 16,698,380 (hereinafter “mutual-aid amount”) in total to F with medical expenses and damages (argument).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred in the course of intentionally interfering with the Plaintiff’s career by, without any special reason, sudden operation at the front section of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, or the process of sudden operation with the Defendant’s vehicle, to avoid collisions with the Defendant’s vehicle, which resulted in the Plaintiff’s unilateral fault.

The Plaintiff exempted the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle from liability by paying the instant mutual aid money to F, so the Defendant, who is the mutual aid business operator of the Defendant’s vehicle, is obligated to pay the instant mutual aid money to the Plaintiff as the amount for reimbursement, in accordance

3. According to the evidence and the statements and images stated in Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 5, at the time of the accident in this case, the plaintiff's vehicle was at the front side of the three-lane where the plaintiff's vehicle was in operation at the time of the accident in this case, with a variety of money in order to change its lanes into the four-lane, and the plaintiff's vehicle was at the end of the two-lane vehicle and was at the end of the two-lane vehicle in order to overtake the defendant vehicle, it can be recognized that the plaintiff's vehicle was injured by more than the passenger F, who was on board the plaintiff's vehicle in this process.

According to this, it is examined.