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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer that entered into an automobile insurance contract with C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

B. On July 12, 2017, at around 10:40, the Defendant moved the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was a dual parking of the Defendant’s vehicle outside of the parking zone, in order to move the vehicle on the front of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”), by hand, pushed the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was parked in front of the vehicle following the vehicle. Since then, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was pushed down, and the F vehicle reatted the G vehicle again, and the G vehicle reat into the H vehicle in order.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident", and the above three vehicles are collectively referred to as "victims" (hereinafter referred to as "victims").

On July 19, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,097,00 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (excluding KRW 500,000) and KRW 2,679,910 for the repair cost of the damaged vehicle until July 21, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number in case of additional number), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant moved the plaintiff's vehicle to the hand. After securing the space where the defendant's vehicle was absent from the defendant's vehicle, the plaintiff's vehicle should have taken such measures as moving the plaintiff's vehicle to the place or leaving the qui so that the plaintiff's vehicle should not be pushed down, it was negligent in failing to take such measures, and the accident of this case occurred due to the defendant's negligence.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff moved the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the place of removal, confirmed whether the Plaintiff’s vehicle was sealed, and took necessary measures, such as leaving the place of the instant accident, etc., so there was no negligence in relation to the instant accident.

C. Comprehensively taking account of the above-mentioned basic facts and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the recognition of one claim for reimbursement.