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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. On July 2, 2016, around 18:50, the number of the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle, the number of which was D, was the same as that of the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle, which was the 2nd underground floor and the 1st underground floor in the Goyang-dong Office C Officetel underground parking lot, Goyang-si, Busan-si, Busan-si, to enter the 2nd underground floor and the 2nd underground floor, was reached with the Defendant’s insured vehicle.

Both insured vehicles are left to the left for their driving, and the Defendant’s insurable vehicle was driven by the right-hand, respectively, and the Defendant’s insured vehicle was driven by the right-hand, and there was an accident where the left-hand side of the Defendant’s insured vehicle and the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle was shocked.

(hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. The Plaintiff’s insured vehicle was destroyed due to the instant accident, and on July 27, 2016, the Plaintiff spent KRW 792,200 as insurance money equivalent to the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle’s repair cost, excluding KRW 200,000, which is the insured’s self-charges.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry and video of Gap evidence 1 to 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the instant accident occurred due to the total negligence of the Defendant’s insured vehicle driver.

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance which judged the negligence of both insured vehicles as 50:50 is unfair, and the defendant is obligated to pay damages equivalent to 792,200 won, which is the total insurance money paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff, who is the insurer of the plaintiff insured vehicle, pursuant to Article 682

B. We examine the rate of negligence on the occurrence of the instant accident.

Although the insured vehicle was temporarily stopped between the impulses of both insured vehicles, the insured vehicle was driven by the Defendant’s insured vehicle, and the insured vehicle was shocked by the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle as the front driver.

However, the following circumstances revealed by the images of Gap evidence 8 and Eul evidence 2, i.e., the defendant's insured vehicle first discovered and stopped the plaintiff's insured vehicle.