2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to F vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

나. 원고 차량은 2016. 2. 4. 18:50경 서산시 G에 있는 교차로에서 직진하던 중 원고 차량의 오른쪽에서 왼쪽 방향으로 진행하던 자전거를 충격하였고, 그 충격으로 자전거 운전자인 I이 옆으로 튕겨져 나가 원고 차량 맞은편 도로에 주차되어 있던 피고 차량과 재차 충격하였다

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

By April 5, 2018, the Plaintiff paid 147,055,850 won in total to I for medical expenses incurred from the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred concurrently with the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle who violated the duty of safe driving and the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who was in illegal parking, and that the driver of the defendant vehicle was at least 30% of the negligence.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that there is no causation between the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle and the injury of the I even if the defendant vehicle was illegal parking.

B. The driver of any motor vehicle who finds the negligence of the driver of any motor vehicle shall not park the motor vehicle in a place within 10 meters from the crosswalk (Article 32 subparag. 5 of the Road Traffic Act). According to the entries and images stated in the evidence No. 5-3 of the Road Traffic Act and images, it is recognized that the motor vehicle was parked immediately adjacent to the crosswalk, so the driver of any motor vehicle can be recognized as the negligence parked in the parking-prohibited area.

(c)whether causation is recognized.