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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

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

B. On May 4, 2015, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding on the alleyway along the alleyway on the back side of the Sim-si Suwon-si Si 09:58, an accident occurred where the driver of the Defendant vehicle, who completed parking between the vehicles parked on the right side of the Plaintiff vehicle, opened a door in order for the driver of the Defendant vehicle to get out and contacted the right side of the Plaintiff vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. By May 13, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 6,468,430 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence and scope of liability for damages;

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff is not able to anticipate the occurrence of the accident because the defendant's vehicle, as the plaintiff's vehicle, which was driven at a considerable interval with parked vehicle, was opened as an even active door.

Therefore, the defendant's vehicle's negligence is an accident.

In this regard, the defendant is expected to have a driver to get a vehicle down from the vehicle parked on the right side and is proceeding at a considerable speed without complying with the left-hand side of the road and neglecting the duty of Jeonju as long as he neglected the duty of Jeonju.

It shows to the effect that the negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle that conflict with the defendant's vehicle that opened the door of the driver's seat is more than 50%.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the accident of this case should take into account the movement of the vehicle that is driven by the vehicle from time to time when the vehicle is parked and unloaded on the side road, and opened the door on a full scale. However, the defendant vehicle driver neglected to perform such duty of care.