1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. Costs arising from an appeal and an incidental appeal shall be respectively.

1. Basic facts

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

B. On October 12, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked with the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”) at the parking lot for the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of Yeongdeungpo-gu,

C. On October 17, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 746,900 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, except for KRW 200,000,000, as the instant accident insurance amount.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence revealed prior to the determination of the percentage of negligence, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is a front vehicle, and the Defendant’s vehicle was left behind to the left part of the passage in the parking lot, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was moved to the right side of the passage, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was left to the right side of the passage, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was left to the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the fact that the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle are shocked while left to the left part can be acknowledged.

In light of the circumstances, such as the background of the occurrence of the accident in this case and shock level, the accident in this case did not closely examine the traffic conditions of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle who left the left and left the left, and did not closely examine the traffic conditions of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle who left the left, and the traffic conditions of the front bank, and the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle and the driver of the defendant vehicle in this case committed concurrent crimes. It is reasonable to view that the negligence ratio of the driver of the vehicle in this case and the driver of the defendant vehicle in this case

B. The scope of the right of indemnity is that the Plaintiff paid the insurance money on the basis of the security for self-vehicle damage, and the security for self-vehicle damage by the insurer against the occurrence of the insurance accident.