1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with the D vehicle owned by C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with the E vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On January 26, 2018, around 23:30, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was making a round to leave the parking lot in the F apartment underground parking lot in Leecheon-si, Leecheon-si. However, there was an accident where the front left left left part of the Defendant’s vehicle that entered the parking lot and the front right part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On January 31, 2018, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 291,700 at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(Exclusion of Self-Payment 200,000 won). [Grounds for Recognition] / [Ground for Recognition] / The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, each of the entries or images in Eul evidence 1 through 4 (including virtual numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's assertion that the accident of this case occurred because the driver of the defendant vehicle, who is a driver of the defendant vehicle, has to proceed on the right side of the road when entering the underground parking lot, by breaking the provisional center line on the wind that is run on the left side side. It was not anticipated that the plaintiff vehicle is 80% of the defendant vehicle's fault. Since it is reasonable to 80% of the defendant vehicle's fault, the defendant who is the insurer of the defendant vehicle, is liable to pay the plaintiff 23,360 won (=291,700 won x 0.8) equivalent to 80% of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff. 2) The lawsuit of this case was filed in violation of the duty of complete care as stipulated in the mutual agreement on deliberation of compensation dispute concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, and thus, it should be dismissed. b) The defendant vehicle entered the underground parking lot and stops the vehicle after finding it.