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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a non-life insurance company that runs the automobile insurance business, etc., and is an insurer that has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A as an insurable vehicle with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is a company that operates the Daedong District.

B. At around 17:20 on February 12, 2015, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle A parked the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the Chang-dong, Chang-dong, Chang-dong, Chang-dong, North Korea, and according to the direction of the employees of the Defendant Company, the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the Plaintiff’s vehicle into the automatic rent machine and the Plaintiff’s wheels on the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle should be located on the day of the vehicle during the automatic rent period.

Sound, speed change was kept in a neutral state.

C. The Defendant’s employees C placed the front wheels of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the left side of the vehicle in the automatic set-off vehicle and operated the automatic set-off vehicle, and subsequently adjusted the location of the Plaintiff’s vehicle twice by keeping the back side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle twice.

The employee of the defendant, who was on the front of the exit, reported that the plaintiff's vehicle moves to the right side of the entrance, and took a sound to the above A, but the above A did not recognize the above situation because it reported the mobile phone within the plaintiff's vehicle.

E. Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s vehicle left from the front of the exit of the vehicle and moved to the right side from the front of the vehicle, and shocked with the third vehicle board.

(f) On April 14, 2015, A, the owner of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, claimed insurance money for his own vehicle damage to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff paid the insurance money of KRW 1,529,600 (except for his own share) to A.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 20, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers for those with serial numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred is one-time gross negligence when the employees in charge of the third-party business of the Defendant company rent the Plaintiff’s vehicle, thereby significantly violating the duty of care.