1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The particulars of the instant accident are as follows.

On October 7, 2018, at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the insured vehicle of the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) at the time of the accident, around 17:56 on October 7, 2018, at the time of the accident, the part of the Defendant vehicle, which was set up in the parking zone installed in the above parking lot in the e-dong, Dong-dong Park Parking Accident in the area where the vehicle of the Plaintiff was located in Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, is destroyed by the rearer of the Defendant vehicle and the left-hander of the Plaintiff vehicle, and the part which was damaged. On October 31, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 856,000, which deducted its own charges from its repair cost of the Plaintiff vehicle of KRW 1,000.

[Ground for Recognition: Descriptions and images of Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 2 to 5 (including paper numbers)]

2. Assertion and determination

A. The parties’ assertion that the instant accident occurred entirely by the negligence of the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Defendant asserts that the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 856,00,000, while the Defendant asserts that the mistake of the Plaintiff’s driver is larger.

B. (1) The above facts and evidence revealed as follows. In other words, the Plaintiff’s driver appears to have found the Defendant’s vehicle moving from the parking area in the passage in the parking area. Thus, even if the Defendant’s vehicle had waiting until entering the parking area or secured at least the distance with the Defendant’s vehicle, the instant accident occurred. However, in light of the fact that the Defendant’s driver would have been able to avoid the instant accident if the Plaintiff’s vehicle approaching in the course of entering the parking area would have been safely accessed by properly examining the movement of the Plaintiff’s vehicle approaching in the course of entering the parking area. Thus, the instant accident was the Plaintiff’s main fault and the Defendant’s driver’s negligence.