1. The plaintiff assistant intervenor's appeal is dismissed.

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

purport.

1. Basic facts

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

B. Around 14:03 on July 22, 2014, the driver of the Defendant vehicle driven the Defendant vehicle, driving the three-lane section from the north to the south, according to the distribution system located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, and driving the three-lane section from the north to the south, and the driver of the Defendant vehicle shocked the back part of the driver’s seat on the front side of the Plaintiff vehicle parked in the three-lane front of the D store by the front direction of the Defendant vehicle.

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

On August 27, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,672,00 of the insurance money at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor succeeded to the rights and obligations under the insurance contract regarding the Plaintiff’s vehicle during the instant lawsuit period.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11 (including additional numbers, if any), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the accident of this case was caused by negligence on the part of the driver of the defendant vehicle who neglected his duty of care in front, so the defendant is liable to compensate for the damage caused by the accident of this case.

다만, 위 인정사실 및 앞서 본 증거에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, 이 사건 사고 당시 원고 차량이 정차한 곳은 반포대로에서 E이 ‘ㅏ’자 형태로 분기되기 직전인 곳으로서 도로교통법 제32조 제2호에서 주정차금지구역으로 정한 ‘교차로의 가장자리나 도로의 모퉁이로부터 5미터 이내인 곳‘에 해당하는 것으로 보이는 점, 가사 그렇지 않다고 하더라도 원고 차량 운전자가 오후 2시경 많은 차량들이 빈번하게 통행하고 있는 3차로 도로의 3차로에 차량을 정차함으로써 3차로에서의 정상적인 차량 통행에 장애를 일으킨 점을 고려하면...