A. The Plaintiff is a superior operator who entered into a mutual aid agreement with Csi Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On December 16, 2018, around 19:10 on December 16, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle temporarily stopped in order to let passengers get off while driving on the road at the 25-lane 25-ro, Yongsan-gu Embassy of Yongsan-gu, Seoul Embassy-do.

However, while the defendant's vehicle was stopped behind the plaintiff's vehicle, the front side of the plaintiff's vehicle was shocked on the right side of the defendant's vehicle.

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

On April 24, 2019, the Plaintiff paid 984,000 won, excluding 200,000,000 won to the owner of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, among the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence No. 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the right to indemnity

A. The following circumstances can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence revealed in the underlying facts, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff’s vehicle is inevitable to a certain extent to allow the Plaintiff’s vehicle to stop on the road for the safe passenger getting on and off the taxi, and (ii) the vehicle stop within 10 meters from the crosswalk pursuant to Article 32 subparag. 5 of the Road Traffic Act, but the purport of the above provision is to prevent the foregoing danger in the event of an accident because there is a vehicle parked in the vicinity of the crosswalk due to the discovery of another vehicle. Even if the Defendant’s vehicle violated the above provision, it does not recognize the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s negligence in the accident of this case where the Plaintiff’s vehicle stops in the future, and (iii) the Defendant’s vehicle is the Plaintiff’s vehicle.