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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the Plaintiff’s Basi-si (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with C with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On September 28, 2013, around 20:08, the Plaintiff: (a) driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and stopped on the street in the vicinity of the inflow of Suwon ICT in order to board passengers on the road, while driving in the flood bank located in the area of the dives of the dives of the river in Daegu on the road; (b) the Defendant’s vehicle conflict with the rear of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and due to its shock, the Plaintiff’s vehicle re-consected with the street trees, resulting in an accident involving the replacement of

(hereinafter the above accident is referred to as "the accident of this case"). 【The ground for recognition ] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, 6, 7, Eul evidence 1, 3, and 4 (which include each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the facts of recognition of the above liability for damages, the accident in this case occurred due to the negligence of the defendant vehicle driver who violated the duty to maintain a safe distance and the duty to keep a prior watch. Thus, the defendant, who is the insurer of the defendant vehicle, is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident in this case

In regard to this, the defendant argued that the defendant's liability should be limited in consideration of the plaintiff's negligence, because the plaintiff's vehicle was forced to take a bend crossing and immediately left the bend, and contributed to the occurrence or expansion of the damage. However, there is no evidence to recognize that the defendant's vehicle was rapidly parked in the plaintiff's vehicle at a distance to the extent that it is impossible to avoid collision. Thus, the defendant's above argument cannot be accepted.

3. According to the statements and images of Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 7, 10, and 11 within the scope of damages, the plaintiff repair the plaintiff's vehicle after the accident in this case, and the plaintiff is running the taxi business.