1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On August 7, 2013, at around 08:20, the Defendant’s vehicle was parked in parallel without correcting buckkes on the passage of the Songpa-gu Seoul apartment parking lot. However, in the process of moving the Defendant’s vehicle, the part of the back part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle parked on the front line of the Defendant vehicle was shocked with the front part of the Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On August 20, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,590,000 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries or videos of Gap's evidence 1 to 7, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted and determined that the owner of the defendant vehicle is negligent in parking the vehicle in violation of Article 49 of the Road Traffic Act and failure to operate the brakes, and the owner of the parked vehicle does not lose the operator's identity. Thus, the defendant, the insurer of the defendant vehicle, is responsible for claiming the amount equivalent to the repair cost of the plaintiff vehicle caused by the accident in this case. However, the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act applies to human damage and there is no application to material damage. As seen earlier, the part claiming the amount of the plaintiff's indemnity due to the accident in this case is material damage. Thus, the plaintiff's argument that the owner of the defendant vehicle is responsible for the operator under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act is without merit

Furthermore, the purport that the Plaintiff’s assertion is held liable for general tort by the owner of the Defendant vehicle.

Even if ordinary parking is frequently conducted.