1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties or may be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 9, Eul evidence No. 2 (including video No. 1), and Gap evidence No. 2, the whole purport of the pleadings. A

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with A with respect to Benz C220D vehicles (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with Csi (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 16:00 on May 11, 2016, the Defendant driver of the vehicle, driving a road near the Seo-gu Incheon Western District District, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon, with a view to the view to the protection of thermal rain water distance from the long-distance flood protection, and the driver of the vehicle collisions the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was driven by the central line, and proceeded in an opposite

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

As the expected repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (5,730,387) due to the instant accident exceeds the automobile value (46,000,000) and the vehicle value after depreciation, the Plaintiff paid KRW 42,320,00 as insurance money to the Plaintiff’s insured worker A on June 1, 2016 (i.e., the depreciated vehicle value of KRW 52,620,000,000). Meanwhile, on June 28, 2016, the Defendant paid KRW 35,70,000 as the indemnity amount due to the instant accident.

2. Determination:

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (i.e., the instant accident occurred due to the total negligence of the Defendant’s driver, and the Defendant, a mutual aid business operator for the Defendant’s vehicle, must compensate for all damages

The insurance money actually paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff insured is KRW 42,320,00,000 after deducting the proceeds from the sale of remaining goods from the depreciation vehicle value. However, the Defendant paid only KRW 35,70,000,000 after deducting the proceeds from the sale of remaining goods from the market value of KRW 46,00,000 among the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

Therefore, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff A from the insurance money that the Plaintiff paid.