1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

Facts of recognition

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

On April 26, 2016, at around 09:25, the Defendant’s vehicle was driven in the reverse direction of the progress direction indicated on the floor surface and wall surface of the parking lot in the apartment parking lot located in the Busan Seo-gu trile Law-dong, and the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was directly located on the right side from the left side of the Defendant’s driving direction, was shocked into the front part of the Defendant’s driving seat.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). On May 2, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,679,000 (including the Plaintiff’s driver’s share of KRW 500,000) for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as insurance proceeds.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff asserted the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, as a whole, and the purport of the pleading as a whole, and the plaintiff asserted that the defendant's vehicle at the time of the accident in this case had been driving ahead of the parking lot indication, so the accident in this case was wholly caused by the negligence of the defendant vehicle.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that since the point of accident of this case is within the building parking lot, no road surface display, wall surface display, etc. are forced and there is negligence on the part of the plaintiff vehicle that neglected its duty of care.

Judgment

The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the facts of recognition and the evidence mentioned above, that is, even if the main direction indication inside the parking lot is not enforced by the Road Traffic Act, it is displayed and installed for the smooth and safe operation of vehicles within the parking lot. At the time of the accident of this case, the defendant vehicle operated not only in the reverse direction of the driving direction marked, but also in a considerable speed without reducing the speed at the intersection inside the parking lot. Meanwhile, the plaintiff vehicle is also the same.