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

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

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

B. On April 15, 2019, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was parked at the edge of the backway near Pyeongtaek-si E, and the Defendant’s vehicle was parked in the space between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the vehicle parked thereafter.

C. The driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle reported to the police that “the Defendant’s vehicle was faced with a defect due to shocking the backer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle during parking,” while receiving the insurance from the Plaintiff and repairing the relevant damaged part.

On April 25, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 164,900 after deducting KRW 200,000 of its own charges from the repair cost for the back-of-lifeer on the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The parties' assertion that the plaintiff argued that since the driver of the defendant vehicle has shocked the plaintiff vehicle by one-way negligence while driving in normal parking, the defendant, the insurer of the defendant vehicle, should pay the plaintiff the indemnity amount of KRW 164,900, and the delay damages for this.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that there is no fact that the defendant's vehicle has shocked the plaintiff's vehicle and even if so, the repair of the plaintiff's vehicle is irrelevant to the above accident.

B. Determination 1 was submitted only to this Court Nos. 2, 3, and 11, and a CCTV image which photographs the space from the back part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the rear part.

According to the purport of the entire film and pleading, the defendant vehicle is parked in close vicinity to the plaintiff vehicle even though there is sufficient space between the plaintiff vehicle and the vehicle parked behind the vehicle, and it is true that the front part of the defendant vehicle and the rear part of the plaintiff vehicle are contacted.