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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

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

B. Around 11:00 on March 25, 2016, the Defendant’s vehicle runs along the above parking route from the parking lot of the first floor of the department store in Bupyeong-gu, Incheon. On the other hand, in order to park on the parking line, there was a conflict between the fence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s left-hand side and the part above the right-hand side of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was moving along the parking line to the above parking line in order to park on the parking line.

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

On May 23, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,176,100 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle with respect to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 through 4, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The following circumstances revealing the occurrence and scope of liability for damages and the purport of the entire argument at the above evidence, namely, the parking lot in which the accident in this case occurred is parking zone and the parking zone is marked along each parking zone. At the time of the accident in this case, the Defendant’s vehicle was entering the above parking zone bypassing it in accordance with the instruction of the department store parking guide, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was parked in the front line of the parking zone located on the right side of the Defendant’s driving direction. At the time of the entry into the above road, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was parked in the front line of the parking zone. At the time of the entry into the above road, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was temporarily stopped while half of the vehicle’s body was turned out from the above parking zone, and the Defendant’s driver was moving the Defendant’s vehicle to the left side of the parking zone, and did not reduce the speed by predicting the vehicle’s parking. However, the Plaintiff’s vehicle parking.