1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. At around 03:40 on April 13, 2017, Defendant B shocked the cargo vehicles (E; hereinafter “instant damaged vehicle”) which were parked behind, while driving the cirrator (D) at the runway of the Kimpo Airport, and stopped behind (hereinafter “instant accident”), and the instant damaged vehicle was destroyed by the steering force of the instant damaged vehicle, hump lamps, etc.

B. Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) is an insurer who has concluded an insurance contract for the above sowing machine, which is a sea-going vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 3, Eul's evidence 2, the purport of whole pleading

2. Determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s claim is that the Plaintiff entered the instant damaged vehicle and worked as a water vehicle engineer, and the Defendant Company, the driver of the instant victimized vehicle, as well as the Plaintiff, jointly and severally, should pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 8,852,514, and delay damages therefrom, including KRW 1,922,514, and KRW 6,930,00 for the repair cost of the instant damaged vehicle due to the instant accident (from August 13, 2017 to September 19, 201), KRW 6,930,00 for the lost profit of the relevant vehicle (=2 times per day x KRW 495,00 for the relic vehicle user x KRW 495,00 for the relic vehicle).

B. As seen earlier, the fact that the chief offender of the instant damaged vehicle was destroyed due to the instant accident is recognized, and the Plaintiff appears to have been using the said damaged vehicle at the time of the instant accident.

However, the following circumstances revealed by the purport of Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 4, and Eul evidence 1 and the entire arguments, namely, ① The Suwon Police Station prepared by the Suwon Police Station in connection with the instant accident on August 3, 2017, stated the owner of the instant damaged vehicle as Co., Ltd. not only the owner of the instant damaged vehicle, but also the registration certificate of the said damaged vehicle submitted by the plaintiff as Co., Ltd.; ② the owner of the said damaged vehicle is also indicated as Co., Ltd.; ② the person requesting repair of the said damaged vehicle at the Maintenance Station.