1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to A car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B freight vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

On January 20, 2016, around 23:00, there was a collision between the defendant vehicle parked on the side of the plaintiff vehicle that was parked on the side of the road in front of the front Do first line in the upper south of the road at the upper south of the road (hereinafter “instant accident”).

On January 28, 2016, the Plaintiff, as the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, paid KRW 9,989,000 in total for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in accordance with the instant accident.

[Based on the recognition, the parties concerned in their respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the purport of the entire pleading of the accident of this case asserted that the plaintiff is responsible for the occurrence of the accident of this case even the defendant's vehicle that parked in one lane without street lights at night.

In regard to this, the defendant, at the time of the accident in this case, parked a vehicle in the parking permitted section marked by the edge of the road in white-ray pursuant to Article 32 of the Road Traffic Act and attached Table 6 of the Enforcement Rule thereof, the defendant asserts that the defendant's vehicle was entirely responsible for the occurrence of the accident in this case since the plaintiff's vehicle invadeds the central line and parked in opposite parts.

Judgment

Although the defendant alleged that the plaintiff's vehicle was in operation at the time of the accident in this case, it is difficult to believe that the accident intensity (No. B. 1) is unilaterally prepared by the defendant, and there is no other evidence, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

If the method of parking of the road at night is added to the video in the evidence No. 2, it may be recognized that the place parked by the defendant vehicle at the time of the accident in this case is marked as a white-ray and the road edge does not fall under the prohibited area under the Road Traffic Act.

(b).