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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to a vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) for the vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 09:00 on September 5, 2016, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven a road near the 3-lanes right side of the road, which was driven by the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. On September 5, 2016, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped and unloaded the vehicle at the right side of the third-lanes of the road, and then tried to board the vehicle again. On the other hand, the Defendant’s vehicle driving the three-lanes of the Plaintiff’s vehicle only side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. If the Defendant’s front side of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat passes by the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Plaintiff’s door was already opened or the Defendant’s vehicle opened the Plaintiff’s door while the vehicle passes by the Plaintiff’s vehicle, as examined below, there is dispute between the parties.

There was a shocking accident (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

C. On October 13, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 6,358,000 insurance money at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to negligence where the Plaintiff’s vehicle was stopped on the ticketet while the front door was opened, but the Defendant’s vehicle driver neglected to observe the vehicle line and neglected to perform his duty to stop on the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while driving the vehicle on the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 6,358,000 of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff with the indemnity amount.

B. The defendant's argument that the driver of the defendant's vehicle driven the three-lanes normally, but the plaintiff's vehicle stops along the three-lanes, while the defendant's vehicle stops along the third-lanes of the plaintiff's vehicle, the driver is the door of the driver's seat.