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

B. On September 16, 2015, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle: (a) 00:40% of blood alcohol leveled to 0.141% (hereinafter “the network”) caused the death of the Deceased (hereinafter “the instant accident”) by driving the Defendant vehicle under the one-lane of the front line of the E-factory located in Daegu-gu, Seogu, Seoul (hereinafter “the instant road”); (b) changing the two-lane into the two-lane and returning hand to the port; and (c) changing the two-lane to the one-lane, the Plaintiff loaded the Plaintiff vehicle parked on the two-lane of the instant road; and (d) collision the front part of the Defendant vehicle with the front part of the Defendant vehicle.

C. After paying the Deceased’s total sum of KRW 330,00,000 as insurance money to the deceased’s inheritors, the Defendant applied for deliberation on the instant accident to the committee for deliberation on the dispute over automobile insurance indemnity with the Plaintiff as the respondent. On July 3, 2017, the said committee rendered a decision to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant KRW 33,00,000 (= KRW 330,000,000 x 0.1) by determining the Plaintiff’s negligence due to the Plaintiff’s illegal parking as 10% on July 3, 2017, and the Defendant’s negligence as 90% on the instant accident.”

On July 19, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 33,000,00 to the Defendant according to the above decision of the committee for deliberation of disputes over reimbursement of automobile insurance.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The driver of the Plaintiff 1’s vehicle has been unable to drive normally and mentally due to physical or psychological disputes between the Deceased and the Deceased due to her trouble, and is in violation of the speed limit, and neglected the duty of ex officio and ex officio.