A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to A driver’s B (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C driver’s D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

B. On January 16, 2017, around 15:00, the Plaintiff’s vehicle: (a) around the access road to the commercial apartment parking lot in the upstream-dong, 788-gil, 20, the main part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was directly located on the bend road, was shocked to the back part of the right part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s right part (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

C. On January 20, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,412,00 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, is liable to pay 98,400 won corresponding to the negligence of the Defendant’s driver out of the insurance proceeds paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff (i.e., the Plaintiff’s repair cost of KRW 1,412,00 x 70%) and damages for delay.

In light of the above facts, the defendant's vehicle's failure to discover the plaintiff's vehicle moving behind the road due to negligence that the defendant's vehicle neglected the duty of front-time watch, so the defendant, the insurer of the defendant's vehicle, is obligated to compensate for damages caused by the accident of this case. However, the defendant's liability ratio of the driver of the defendant's vehicle is limited to 30% in consideration of the fact that the plaintiff's vehicle moving into the road due to the vehicle moving into the road without properly looking at the existence of the vehicle moving into the road, and the negligence moving behind the road seems to increase.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for reimbursement due to the accident of this case.