The defendant.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with Nonparty C regarding the Plaintiff’s D vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle E (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. The date and time of the instant accident: On August 12, 2017, at the time and time of the accident: A simplified parking lot at the entrance of Gsaeong-gun F in Jeonnam-gun:

C. (1) The background leading up to the occurrence of the instant accident was that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding with the access road to the G company at the same time and at the same place, as follows, while proceeding with the access road to the G company, and the Defendant’s vehicle that was parked in the said simplified parking lot was under way moving back to the future.

(2) Although the center line of the Noon Line was left on the road where the Plaintiff’s vehicle was travelling along, as seen below, the center line was not opened from the point near the place where the simplified parking lot begins. At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was obstructed by the said center line and its virtual extension line, and the Defendant’s vehicle did not discover the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the course of moving back the vehicle to the back, and the accident of this case occurred that contacted the Defendant’s vehicle’s right side and the left side on the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

On November 16, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 310,000 as insurance money in addition to KRW 200,000,000, in accordance with the payment criteria for self-paid vehicle damage security among the automobile insurance clause with C, the owner of the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff is the cause of the instant claim, and the judgment of the first instance that recognized only 40% of the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle, even though the instant accident was entirely caused by the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle, is unfair. Therefore, the Defendant is the Plaintiff.