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. Basic facts

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

B. On February 10, 2016, around 16:36, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was parked in the parking zone, was in contact with the front door of the Defendant’s vehicle that was parked in the apartment complex located in Samsung-dong, Samsung-dong located in the north-dong at port (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On February 25, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 550,000 as insurance money at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 6, Gap evidence Nos. 3, part of Eul evidence Nos. 3, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged that the accident of this case occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle while the passenger of the defendant vehicle did not live around the defendant vehicle at the time when the vehicle passed on the side of the defendant vehicle, and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle. Accordingly, the defendant's accident of this case is moving back to the plaintiff vehicle.

At the time of a shock accident, the defendant's vehicle was parked in the parking area, so it is proved that the driver of the vehicle was grossly negligent.

B. According to the evidence revealed earlier, the accident in the instant case caused a relatively minor screen, which is short of part of the front door of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and it appears that the front door of the Defendant’s vehicle is not likely to cause any particular damage. If the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked while the front door of the Defendant’s vehicle was already opened as alleged by the Defendant, the front door of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time.