1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. As to the Plaintiff’s vehicles C (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), the Defendant is the insurer who concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to D concrete pumps truck vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

B. On October 14, 2017, at around 09:26, the Defendant’s vehicle stopped on the front side of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and was cut away in the vicinity of concrete, and there was an accident in which concrete was buried on the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was passed by the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On January 3, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,500,00 (except for one’s own share of KRW 500,000) with the insurance money equivalent to the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. The Plaintiff paid KRW 2,50,000 to the repair company on January 10, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, 8, Eul's 1 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who neglected to perform his duty of care at the time of concrete removal work. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the repair cost of KRW 2,500,000 and damages for delay.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff does not have the obligation to pay the repair cost other than the adequate luminous cost of KRW 300,000.

B. (1) According to the above facts of recognition, the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant’s driver who neglected the duty of care, such as failing to properly control the ice at the time of the work of building concrete, etc., and thus, the Defendant is obliged to indemnify the Plaintiff for insurance money equivalent to the repair cost paid by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident.

(2) Furthermore, we examine the scope of repair costs in proximate causal relation with the instant accident.

The above basic facts, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 4.