A. The circumstances surrounding the instant accident are as follows.

On February 9, 2017, at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle CD of the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff at the time of the accident, and the vehicle in the situation of the collision at the entrance of the parking lot of the ESE at the time of racing at the place on February 18:12, 2017, is straight at the intersection of the third-distance distance from the above location side. The Defendant vehicle intends to enter the right-hand side of the Plaintiff vehicle at the time of the accident. The left-hand side of the Plaintiff vehicle, which reported the Defendant vehicle stopped and stopped at the time of the stop and left-hand, conflicts with the front-hand side of the Defendant vehicle. The payment of insurance money is KRW 2

B. The judgment of the first instance court judged the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle as 50:50, and calculated the Plaintiff’s amount of reimbursement as 316,500 won.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 4 through 7, Eul 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The road where the accident of this case occurred is a place where the vehicle is illegal spirits at all times, and since the two vehicles are not a place where they are allowed to walk at the same time, the plaintiff's vehicle is negligent in driving along the virtual center line. The plaintiff's vehicle is a straighter vehicle that first enters the intersection, and the defendant's vehicle is a straighter vehicle prior to the right side, and the defendant's vehicle is a right of priority to pass the plaintiff's vehicle. The defendant's vehicle is aware of the plaintiff's vehicle that is directly under the right side and stops at the right side, and the plaintiff's vehicle is not completely leaving the front side of the defendant's vehicle, and the accident of this case occurred due to the shock of the plaintiff's vehicle and the responsibility of the accident of this case was entirely borne by the defendant. Thus, since the place where the defendant's accident of this case occurred is narrow due to the illegal stopping of both sides, if the defendant's vehicle approaches the front side of the building in front of the plaintiff's building, it is sufficient to walk.