2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”). The Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s D vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”). The Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle E (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

B. On August 19, 2019, around 09:15, the Intervenor driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and moved on the ground along the slope from the underground parking lot of the FF building in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, and left left over the center line on the road adjacent to the parking lot, and conflicting with the Defendant’s vehicle entering the said parking lot at the entrance of the said parking lot (hereinafter “instant accident”).

On September 20, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,900,000 as insurance money after deducting KRW 500,000 from the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 5, video, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's right to indemnity

A. In full view of the above basic facts and the evidence as seen earlier, the defendant vehicle attempted to turn to the left in an abnormal manner that intrudes with the center line of yellow solid lines prohibited from the median line in the absence of direction direction etc., the defendant vehicle driver confirmed the pedestrians who want to pass the entrance of the parking lot, and thus they should turn to the left after the passage of pedestrians, and even if they had to turn to the left, it seems to have immediately turn to the left in the situation where the departure warning, etc. was operated to enter the parking lot before and after the passage of pedestrians. On the other hand, considering the high body of the plaintiff vehicle driver, the possibility of finding the defendant vehicle cannot be ruled out, and even if the plaintiff vehicle driver could not find the defendant vehicle from the underground parking lot due to a slope, it cannot be found that the defendant vehicle was found to have turned to the ground due to the wind slope.

Even if it is done by slope, it should be done by slope.