Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

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

B. On November 9, 2018, around 10:50 on November 10, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle conflict with the Defendant’s vehicle, which had followed the passage of the mast parking lot from the parking section in front of the ground parking lot in front of the building E-dong, the petition-gu, Cheongju-si.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

From November 16, 2018 to March 29, 2019, the Plaintiff paid a sum of KRW 2,635,000 (excluding one’s own shares 313,000) to the Plaintiff vehicle insured as the repair cost of the Plaintiff vehicle.

On November 28, 2019, the Defendant determined that the ratio of the fault of the Defendant’s vehicle was 50% in the instant accident, and paid KRW 1,567,50 to the Plaintiff KRW 3,135,550 equivalent to the repair dog value of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 5, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claims as to the cause of the claim and judgment

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant accident occurred due to the negligence that the Defendant’s vehicle continued to progress by checking the progress of the Defendant’s vehicle while the Plaintiff’s vehicle was moving behind the parking section. As such, the instant accident ought to be deemed as 100% of the fault ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle in the instant accident.

Therefore, the Defendant shall pay the remainder of KRW 1,067,50,000, after deducting the Defendant’s already paid from KRW 2,635,000, which the Plaintiff paid to the Plaintiff, as the amount for reimbursement.

B. In full view of the evidence as revealed earlier and the purport of Gap evidence No. 6 (accident video) as a whole, it is recognized that the plaintiff vehicle started and continued to proceed in the parking section in front of the parking direction of the defendant vehicle while the defendant vehicle was moving along the parking lot of this case, and that the accident in this case occurred due to mutual conflict.