1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Basic facts

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

B. On April 22, 2015, around 10:30, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along one lane from the 14km-Seoul Highway in the direction of the Seoul Highway at the point of the 14km in the direction of the Seoul Highway located in Seongbuk-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Sungnam-si, Seoul, and the front, front, glass, and both sides of the Plaintiff’s vehicle were destroyed, while the vehicle loaded the Defendant’s vehicle running along the two lanes at the front section of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and loaded the Defendant’s vehicle along the two lanes.

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

On August 27, 2015, in relation to the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,731,00 as insurance money under the name of the repair cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Gap evidence No. 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the party's assertion 1) The Plaintiff destroyed the Plaintiff's vehicle due to scattering away from the Defendant's vehicle, which is entirely attributable to the mistake of the Defendant's driver, and thus, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff with the indemnity and the damages for delay thereof. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant is not liable for the damage of the Plaintiff's vehicle, as there is no other evidence as to the circumstance of the occurrence of the accident except

B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged in light of the aforementioned evidence and evidence No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the instant accident appears to have occurred due to fugitives away from the loading of the Defendant vehicle, and the Defendant vehicle driver operating on an expressway carrying gravel, etc. carrying the equipment for correction, with a tent covered on the upper part of the loaded vehicle.