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 circumstances leading up to the instant accident are as follows.

On July 29, 2015, 02:10 on July 29, 2015, 2015, at the time of the accident, the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle B, which was operated by the Plaintiff insured at the time of the accident, changed the course from the direction of the completion intersection to the high speed terminal to the two-lanes of the above location, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driving in the direction of the high speed terminal along the two-lanes of the above location. The Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the accident, which was parked in the two-lanes of the front part, was shocked. The payment of KRW 15,670,130 in total with the medical care benefits paid by the Plaintiff’s driver’s medical expenses [based on recognition], there is no dispute over the payment of the insurance money, Gap’s evidence No. 1 through 11, Eul’

2. The parties' assertion

A. The driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped in the vicinity of the entrance site of the Pyeongtaek Underground Road, thereby blocking the Plaintiff’s vehicle from working without any safety measures. The driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who found the vehicle late thereafter, attempted to change the course into one lane and avoid the Defendant’s vehicle. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 15,670,130, which is the full amount of medical expenses for the Plaintiff’s vehicle driver who paid the insurance money, to the Plaintiff, as the charge of the Defendant’s vehicle driver on the occurrence of the instant accident is recognized. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the maximum amount (20,000 won) prescribed in the proviso of Article 3(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

B. The Defendant’s vehicle was waiting and stopped to change course from two lanes to one lane due to construction works on the front side of the two lanes, but is not an illegal parking and stopping. However, the Defendant’s vehicle’s failure to perform its duty of securing safety distance and driving the Defendant’s vehicle was merely a shock of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and thus, the instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s total fault.

3. Determination

(a) Dried stoves;