A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On November 13, 2018, around 15:20 on November 13, 2018, at the entrance of the Chuncheon apartment underground parking lot, the Plaintiff’s vehicle confirmed and stopped the Defendant’s vehicle leaving the underground parking lot while driving along the access road to the parking lot, leading to the left-hand side of the damage caused by the illegal parked vehicle, but the Defendant’s vehicle did not avoid the Plaintiff’s vehicle and did not cause the collision with the front-hand part of the driver’s seat (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On November 19, 2018, the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 993,900,000, excluding KRW 248,000 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, 5 through 8, Eul's entries or images, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's alleged vehicle recognized and suspended the vehicle's moving to the underground parking lot that is parked on the right side of the moving direction while entering the vehicle, and the defendant's vehicle did not avoid the plaintiff's vehicle that is rapidly rapid due to negligence despite the fact that there was a space to avoid moving to the right side of the plaintiff's vehicle, and caused the plaintiff's vehicle. Thus, the accident of this case is entirely by the defendant's negligence. 2) The defendant's alleged vehicle used the vehicle's exit in the instant parking lot to normally move out the vehicle, and the plaintiff's vehicle interfered with the course by spreading the vehicle's moving along the defendant's vehicle, despite the fact that the defendant's vehicle could have known that it is going to the vehicle's moving to the right side through the operation of the departure warning, etc., the plaintiff's fault related to the accident of this case was 50%.