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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to a truck A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a car mutual aid contract with respect to B bus B (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On December 9, 2016, around 04:04, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeded along two lanes in front of the D household located in Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, and did not discover the Defendant’s vehicle, which was parked across two lanes on the front right side of the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the rear part of the vehicle was shocked by the front part of the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On January 2, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 31,500,000 to the Plaintiff’s automobile repair cost, etc.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) along with the Plaintiff’s negligence, the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s fault on the drive lane of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the fault ratio is 70% for the Plaintiff’s vehicle driver and 30% for the Defendant’s vehicle driver. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s negligence on the driving lane of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 9,450,00 (=31,500,000 x 30%) corresponding to the Defendant’s liability ratio out of the insurance money paid to the Plaintiff. (2) It is reasonable to deem that the instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s negligence on the front-time part

B. In light of the following circumstances in light of the overall purport of the evidence presented earlier, the instant accident was committed by the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle while occupying part of the Defendant’s lane and stopping the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Plaintiff’s driver neglected the duty of front-time care.