The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.

1. On September 10, 2017, the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion C vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) led to the building in front of the Gu building in Ansan-si, Ansan-si, an Ansan-si, the upper part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was stopped and Mad E (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) in order to enter the lane from the right delivery of the Plaintiff vehicle to the lane, and the vehicle was destroyed by the collision between the middle part on the left side of the Defendant vehicle and the middle part on the front side of the Plaintiff vehicle.

As such, the accident occurred by negligence of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff, as an insurer who entered into the automobile insurance contract for the Plaintiff’s vehicle, paid KRW 4,860,000 (excluding KRW 200,000 on its own) for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle destroyed by the said accident to the insured on June 26, 2019, the Defendant, as an insurer who entered into the automobile insurance contract for the Defendant’s vehicle, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the indemnity equivalent to the above amount and the delayed damages.

2. Determination

A. At around 22:40 on September 10, 2017, the driver of the Defendant vehicle: (a) was aware that the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped in the direction behind the Defendant vehicle while driving the Defendant vehicle and going to the vehicular road from the front delivery of the building in Ansan-gu, Busan-si; and (b) was stopped.

Since then, although the driver of the plaintiff vehicle (the insurer's father) and the driver of the defendant vehicle have sufficiently examined whether they were damaged on the front side of the plaintiff vehicle, they failed to confirm it.

The driver of the Defendant Vehicle stated to the driver of the Plaintiff Vehicle that “I would like to look at the brightness of the day,com now, and at the same time, I would like to see any defect.”

2) The Defendant vehicle driver and the Plaintiff vehicle insured provided different opinions on the occurrence of the above-day contact accident in telephone calls made by contact between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff vehicle insured.

3) On September 12, 2017, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle completed the accident report (receiving number F) to the Defendant.