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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with the Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) for the vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 11:30 on October 6, 2014, the Defendant’s vehicle driven along the alleyway of Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul, was found to be a rear parking vehicle on the front side, and proceeded to the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle waiting to stop on the right side of the road. The Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped immediately before overtaking the vehicle, which led to an accident that contacts the right side side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle with the front left side of the vehicle.

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

On October 23, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,240,000 for the repair cost of Plaintiff’s vehicle as insurance money, and thereafter filed a request for deliberation with the Deliberative Committee on Disputes over Compensation for Automobile Insurance (hereinafter “Deliberative Committee”). On February 2, 2015, the Deliberative Committee set the Defendant’s liability ratio to 25%, and accordingly returned KRW 387,50,000 from the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, or the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the accident in this case occurred when the defendant's vehicle recognized the plaintiff's vehicle that was parked on the right side of the direction, but attempted to overtake the plaintiff's vehicle in an unreasonable way without waiting to stop safely by expecting the plaintiff's vehicle to depart immediately. Thus, 852,50 won of the insurance money (i.e., the insurance money paid 1,240,000 - 387,500 won returned from the defendant) borne by the plaintiff in relation to the accident in this case caused by the above negligence of the defendant vehicle. On the other hand, the defendant had a sufficient space to the left side of the plaintiff's vehicle where the defendant vehicle stopped.