A. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff’s vehicle volume BenzS600 (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”)

(1) The Defendant is the owner of C Truck (hereinafter “Defendant”), and the Defendant is the owner of C Truck.

(2) Around January 3, 2016, the Plaintiff parked the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the road located in the Manju-gun, Jeonnam-gun, and the Plaintiff’s driver D immediately behind the Plaintiff’s vehicle, resulting in the Plaintiff’s damage to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, as the Plaintiff’s driver D moved the Plaintiff’s goods from the immediately behind the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the scraper of the Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] / Each description of Gap 1, 2, 11, 12 evidence (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 6, 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. According to the above facts, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages incurred by the plaintiff due to the instant accident as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

C. The defendant asserts that the defendant's assertion of comparative negligence was erroneous in neglecting the plaintiff's vehicle in a dangerous environment, and that the scope of compensation for damages should be determined by considering the above negligence of the plaintiff.

However, the evidence presented by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff left the Plaintiff vehicle.

Rather, the driver of the Defendant vehicle seems to have been able to demand the movement of the Plaintiff vehicle before the work was commenced at a place where the Plaintiff vehicle does not enter the border of the Working Group.

Plaintiff

The vehicle was parked in the vicinity of the construction material.

However, it is difficult to view that there is a proximate causal relationship between the Plaintiff’s parking and the instant accident.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

2. Scope of liability for damages

A. Repair cost: If the exchange price of the damaged vehicle at the time of the accident of KRW 4,500,000 is significantly costed, it shall be deemed impossible to repair in an economic aspect.