1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On May 17, 2015, at around 15:56, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven around the center line of the connecting passage, which was lowered below the underground level from the underground floor in the C apartment underground parking lot in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, the main part of the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s left-hand side, which was the front part of the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s left-hand side, along the string-ho line, honding from the lower left-hand side of that part.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

By June 5, 2015, the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 7,201,50 in total as the repair cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Items A 1 through 5, 7, Eul 1 through 3, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is obliged to pay to the plaintiff 4,320,90 won out of the above insurance money, which is equivalent to 60% of the negligence ratio of the defendant vehicle, and damages for delay thereof, because the defendant rolling stock is f0% in the center line while the defendant rolling stock does not work with headlights in the underground parking lot with the defendant rolling stock, and the negligence ratio of the defendant rolling stock at least 60%.

In regard to this, the defendant, while proceeding in the speed of the plaintiff vehicle, entered the center line to the above road in the underground parking lot and shocking the defendant vehicle to the left. Since the accident in this case was caused by the unilateral negligence of the plaintiff vehicle, the claim for reimbursement in this case is unjust.

B. We examine the judgment, and according to the overall purport of the evidence and arguments mentioned above, the accident in this case is somewhat early in the underground parking lot.