1. The Defendant’s KRW 31,831,545 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from January 9, 2015 to December 18, 2015 for the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the B presses, Ireland, and the Plaintiff’s car (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned vehicle”) with respect to D4.5 tons of Medi truck freight vehicles owned C (hereinafter “Defendant-owned vehicle”).

B. At around 15:03 on May 23, 2013, A transferred the Plaintiff’s vehicle to a G hotel room in front of the F restaurant located in North-gu E-dong at the port from G hotel to the seat of G hotel. On the other hand, the victim H (72 years of age) who walked from G hotel room to the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was shocked into the front side of the Plaintiff’s 12-day medical treatment, resulting in the victim’s injury, such as bovine spongiformiformiform encephalopathy, which requires 12-day medical treatment.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

By January 8, 2015, the Plaintiff paid 127,326,180 won to the victim as medical expenses, etc.

The Defendant’s vehicle was parked at the corner of the location of the instant accident as indicated in the attached Form 2 survey report, and the Defendant’s vehicle is 2.6 meters in front (the total height of the vehicle), 8.6 meters in front (the entire length of the vehicle), 2.2 meters in front (the entire length of the vehicle), and the height of loading 1.54 meters in front (1.14 meters in front and in front).

E. According to Article 32 of the Road Traffic Act, a vehicle shall not be stopped or parked at a place within five meters from the edge of an intersection or the corner of a road. C reported the use of the Defendant vehicle as a private truck under Article 55 of the Trucking Transport Business Act and Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 48 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and the vehicle garage as the vehicle parking facility stated the vehicle as the “parking lot”.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Gap evidence Nos. 11, 13, and 14, and the court's fact inquiry results on November 10, 2015 concerning the port market of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred is the duty of prohibiting the Plaintiff’s vehicle from parking and the fault of the Plaintiff, who violated the duty of safe driving.