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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On June 15, 2019, around 10:44, the Plaintiff’s vehicle parked in a parking space at the parking lot in Seo-gu, Daegu, Daegu, the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle passed while bypassing on the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. There was an accident that the lower part of the Defendant’s vehicle’s right side even and the back part of the Defendant’s vehicle shocks on the left side of the back part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On July 4, 2019, the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 280,000,000, except for the self-paid cost of KRW 200,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 to 7, 9, 10 evidence, Eul's 1 to 3, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant accident revealed that the Defendant’s access to the instant vehicle was discovered and stopped while the Plaintiff’s vehicle was parked on the front side and left side, and that the Defendant’s vehicle was in contact with the Plaintiff’s vehicle while making a right-hand way in front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. As such, the instant accident is entirely attributable to the Defendant’s negligence. (ii) The Plaintiff’s vehicle immediately preceding the instant accident was transferred to the passage of the Defendant vehicle in the parking space while driving a right-hand vehicle; (iii) the Plaintiff’s vehicle interfered with the passage of the Defendant vehicle in possession of a significant portion of the parking lot passage; and (iv) the instant accident site was a parking lot, and thus, the Plaintiff’s driver was required to prepare for collision by predicting the existence of the Defendant’s vehicle driving along the passage.

B. We examine the judgment, and the following are acceptable by the evidence as seen earlier.