The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments, either in the absence of a dispute between the parties, or in the entries or videos of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5, 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 6 (including a branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply):

The Plaintiff is an insurer that has entered into an automobile insurance contract containing self-vehicle damage security agreements with respect to the D vehicle owned by C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer that entered into an automobile insurance contract with E with respect to the F vehicle owned by E (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 10:10 on June 7, 2019, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle is proceeding on a road in the G apartment parking lot in Sungsung-si, G apartment parking lot, the Defendant’s vehicle proceeding along the direction of the proceeding for a temporary stop while changing the direction of the vehicle to the left-hand side and trying to proceed to the right-hand side of the road (hereinafter “instant accident”), and the volume of the accident is as shown in the separate sheet.

C. On June 28, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,253,100, excluding KRW 200,000, out of the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

2. Existence and scope of liability for indemnity; and

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant asserted that the instant accident occurred due to the former fault of the other party. However, in full view of the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire evidence duly admitted, the instant accident was the Plaintiff’s negligence on the part of the Plaintiff’s driver, who did not confirm the movement of the Defendant’s vehicle, and attempted to park a parking space while entering the said apartment parking lot for parking and attempted to park a vehicle in the future, and neglecting the duty of the follow-up and the front-down, for the same purpose as the negligence of the Defendant’s driver, who did not enter the said parking lot, and failed to properly check the movement of the Defendant’s vehicle to attempt parking in the front-round.