1. The part of the first instance judgment against the Plaintiff, which orders payment, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. As to the Plaintiff’s vehicle C (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On February 17, 2020, the Plaintiff’s vehicle came to the vicinity of the entrance in order to get up the ground from the underground parking lot of the apartment E in Gansi-si, Chungcheongnam-si to the ground, and the Defendant’s vehicle that left left to the left to turn from the ground to the first floor above the Plaintiff’s upper floor was shocked into the top and front part before the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

Based on the above insurance contract, on March 6, 2020, the Plaintiff paid KRW 7,600,000 as insurance money, excluding KRW 500,000,000 from the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, evidence Nos. 7-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, video, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Although the Plaintiff’s alleged vehicle discovered the Defendant vehicle that entered the underground parking lot and stopped at the right edge, the Defendant vehicle was negligent in performing the duty to stop on the front side and driving safety, and thus, the instant accident was caused by the negligence of the Defendant vehicle’s driver.

B. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence revealed earlier, i.e., ① the Plaintiff’s vehicle found and stopped the Defendant’s vehicle going left to the left from the center line of the passage at the underground parking lot, but the Defendant’s vehicle appears to have caused the instant accident while making a left-hand turn without properly examining the front line; ② The Defendant’s vehicle appears to have left-hand turn beyond the center line without examining the surplus space with the Plaintiff’s vehicle, even though the passage that was left to the underground parking lot was narrow and the front line was not sufficiently secured.