1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 20:00 on February 21, 2017, the driver of the Defendant vehicle: (a) was moving back on the road located in Daegu Suwon-gu C; (b) was shocked on the left-hand side of the front-hand part of the Plaintiff vehicle that was parked as the rear pandeer of the Defendant vehicle.

C. On April 5, 2017, the Plaintiff, as the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, paid KRW 263,100 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the above accident occurred due to the former negligence by the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle who shocked the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was parked while driving the Defendant’s vehicle. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 263,100 of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff, as well as the amount of KRW 5% per annum under the Civil Act from April 6, 2017 to July 14, 2017, the day following the day when the copy of the complaint is served, which is the day after the payment of the insurance money, and the delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the

The defendant asserts that at the time of the accident, the driver of the plaintiff vehicle parked the plaintiff vehicle in the parking-prohibited area and provided the cause of the accident.

However, it is unclear whether the Plaintiff’s parking place at the time of the occurrence of the instant case constituted a parking prohibition zone, and even if the Plaintiff’s parking place was parked at the time of the occurrence of the instant case as alleged by the Defendant, according to the above evidence, the issue of illegal parking of the Plaintiff’s vehicle between the Defendant’s vehicle and the Plaintiff’s vehicle is offset at the time of the completion of the instant case.