1. 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 entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid operator who has entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On August 19, 2013, at around 01:12, C, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.216% of alcohol content, C driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the two-lanes of the two-lane road in front of the E-cafeteria in Kimhae-si, in accordance with the two-lanes of the two-lane road in front of the E-cafeteria in Kim Jong-si, Kim Jong-si, and was driven by the Defendant’s vehicle that was parked on the two-lanes due to the negligence of failing to properly operate the hand on the part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Accordingly, C, as a driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, suffered injury, such as the downline of the right-to-hand frame, etc. requiring treatment for approximately fourteen weeks.

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

The road in which the accident in this case occurred is a flat, and a bend to the left side end and the straight-line road begins. At the time of the accident in this case, the defendant's vehicle was parked in the two-lanes between the two-lanes in the shape where the vision is turned out and the tail lights and the sidelights are not projected.

By July 22, 2014, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 80,290,700 under the name of medical expenses, etc. of C.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the number of each claimant), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion that the accident occurred by the negligence of the defendant driver who parked on the road where the driver's negligence and parking are prohibited. On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred only due to the driver's drinking alcohol driving, and that there is no proximate causal relation between the illegal parking of the defendant vehicle and the accident of this case.

B. We examine the judgment above.