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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. As to A and B vehicles (the first registered vehicle on August 31, 2015, KRW 2015, GTD, KRW 45,300,00,00 (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”), the Defendant is an insurer who entered into each automobile insurance contract with respect to C vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. At around 14:50 on January 9, 2016, the driver of the Defendant vehicle driven along the one-way passage near the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Saemandong-dong 3 Apartment apartment, going to the right edge in order to avoid a collision with the vehicles entering the road and India (the rear wheels of the driver’s seat is located near the front seat, the rest of the vehicle is located in India), and parked across the road and India (the rear wheels of the driver’s seat is located near the front seat, and the rest of the vehicle is located in India) on the back side of the driver’s seat of the Plaintiff vehicle, which was parked, facing the back side of the driver’s seat, the rear wheel, and the rear wheels of the rear wheels are shocked as the front side of the Defendant vehicle, and then runs back again with the front side of the Defendant vehicle.

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

On January 27, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 4,000,00 for the Plaintiff’s vehicle repair cost (i.e., part cost of KRW 2,523,200, KRW 522,600, value-added tax of KRW 363,630, KRW 817,630, value-added tax of KRW 817,630, KRW 26,430 - Indemnification amount of KRW 200,00).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry into or video of Gap evidence 1 through 13 (including each branch number in the case of additional number) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In light of the following circumstances revealed in the above recognition, the instant accident is an accident that occurred in the course of the Defendant’s driver, who served as a one-way road, avoiding the collision with the Defendant’s normally entering the one-way road, and it is difficult to view that the parking attitude of the Plaintiff’s vehicle interferes with the normal driving of the vehicle that ordinarily drives the one-way road.