A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurance company that has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On December 7, 2018, around 21:35, the Plaintiff’s vehicle parked in Yangsan-si E was involved in an accident in which the Defendant vehicle concealed (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On December 14, 2018, the Plaintiff paid to F Co., Ltd. KRW 1,340,000 as the repair cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and KRW 140,000 as the insurer of each Plaintiff on January 8, 2019 as the towing cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 8, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 and Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The occurrence of damage liability and the vicarious exercise of damage liability;

A. According to the above facts, the defendant, who is the insurer of the defendant vehicle that caused the instant accident, is obligated to compensate the damages of the plaintiff vehicle, barring special circumstances, and then compensate the plaintiff who acquired the right to claim damages from the owner of the plaintiff vehicle for the amount equivalent to the repair cost, etc.

B. The defendant's assertion 1) Article 32 of the Road Traffic Act prohibits parking at a place within 5 meters from the edge of intersection or the corner of road, while the driver of the plaintiff vehicle has occupied most of the first lane in violation of the above provision and illegally parked in violation of the above provision. The plaintiff vehicle's error in the driver of the plaintiff vehicle also caused the accident of this case, and thus, it should be taken into account. 2) The situation that can be seen according to the overall purport of the statement and arguments as stated in the evidence No. 2, No. 2, and No. 1, and the whole purport of oral argument, i.e., the plaintiff vehicle was illegally parked at a point within 5 meters from the corner of the road, but it does not seem to interfere with the passage of the vehicle that is particularly traveling or cause inconvenience to the passage of the vehicle.