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

The defendant.

1. At the time of the instant accident, at around 12:20 on January 15, 2019 at the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle operating the said road in front of the instant parking lot located in the Sinsan-gu, Sinsan-gu at a high time on January 15, 2019 at the time of the instant accident. However, on February 13, 2019, the Defendant vehicle parked in the said road immediately attached to the said road was behind the front of the Defendant vehicle, and entered the said road, and the Defendant vehicle left the said road, as the front of the front of the Plaintiff vehicle, was shocking (hereinafter “instant accident”), the amount of the insurance proceeds paid to the Plaintiff vehicle 1,349,000 won (the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle), total repair cost of KRW 1,549,000,000 excluding self-paid charges of KRW 200,000,000 for self-guaranteed vehicle’s insurance proceeds, and there is no ground to dispute over the Plaintiff’s number 1 or video No.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the aforementioned facts, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident, was driving along the road in front of the said parking lot. However, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, who was the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident, was driving ahead of the said parking lot. However, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, who was the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident, was entering the said road without verifying whether the Defendant’s driver was driving on the said road or not, and entered the said road, which was immediately attached to the said road. The instant accident occurred, and the distance between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant at the time of the instant accident was extremely difficult, and the fact that the distance between the point at which the Plaintiff’

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, who is the Plaintiff’s driver, appears to have been unable to avoid the instant accident, and otherwise, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor was the Plaintiff’s Intervenor.