1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2 The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

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

B. On September 3, 2017, the Plaintiff’s vehicle parked in the underground parking lot of apartment located in Yongsan-si, Suwon-si, and thereafter, the Defendant’s vehicle parked on the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

C. On September 4, 2017, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle reported that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged in the parking condition.

Around that time, the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the rear wheeler part of the Defendant’s vehicle’s right side is damaged in the form of flick and flick.

On September 11, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 451,200 as insurance money for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 1 to 3, and Eul evidence 6 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Damage caused to the Plaintiff’s alleged vehicle was incurred in the course of parking at around 12:20 on September 4, 2017 by the Defendant’s vehicle. As such, the driver of the Defendant vehicle is liable to compensate for such damage.

Since the Plaintiff paid the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as the insurance money and acquired the right of compensation for damages in accordance with the subrogation legal principle of insurer subrogation under Article 682 of the Commercial Act, the Defendant, as the insurer of the Defendant vehicle, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the damages equivalent to

B. The defendant's assertion that there was no conflict between the defendant's vehicle's parking on the side of the plaintiff's vehicle.

After the parking of the Defendant vehicle, there is a vehicle from which the Plaintiff was parked, and there is a possibility that the accident occurred in the course of re-parking after the Plaintiff’s vehicle was parked or that the vehicle was parked. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the accident occurred in the course of parking of

3. The evidence revealed earlier.