1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On January 19, 2015, around 12:26, the driver of the Plaintiff AF (hereinafter “Defendant”), who moved back on the road front of the full-time elementary school in the Dong-dong, Nam-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and parked at that place, shocked the front part of the Defendant vehicle’s back.

Plaintiff

On February 13, 2015, the Plaintiff, the insurer of the vehicle, paid insurance proceeds of KRW 302,000 at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

The Plaintiff seeks reimbursement of damages equivalent to the above insurance money on behalf of the Plaintiff’s driver against the Defendant, who is the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle.

B. There was no difference between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle, while driving the Defendant’s vehicle.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff 3 and 4 are admitted as evidence that he left behind the Defendant’s vehicle and shocked the back part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

According to the images of Gap 3, the defendant rolling stock was stopped near the plaintiff rolling stock parked on the narrow side while leaving the left side, and then proceeded in the future. The driver of the plaintiff rolling stock can recognize the fact that the driver of the vehicle gets light immediately after the stop, but the shape or sound of the two vehicles cannot be confirmed.

In addition, according to the plaintiff's assertion or the video of Gap 3, the defendant vehicle shocked the plaintiff vehicle.

Even if its location appears to be the chief backer, the video of Gap 4 is about the backer part of the driver's seat of the plaintiff's vehicle, and the shock level is not consistent.

B. The Defendant vehicle has no trace of contact.

At the time of Incheon Southern Police Station, after receiving a traffic accident report and investigating the circumstances of the accident, the driver of the defendant vehicle was not suspected of violating the Road Traffic Act, etc.

(A) 2, B 1.c.

The Plaintiff’s assertion is difficult to accept, since there is no other evidence to prove that two vehicles were shocked.

3. The Plaintiff’s assertion of the conclusion is without merit and thus dismissed.