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. The reasoning for this part of the lower court’s reasoning is as follows: “The Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds equivalent to KRW 183,677,860, totaling KRW 60,000, totaling KRW 243,677,860 under the pretext of an agreement on compensation including future treatment expenses (= KRW 183,67,860, KRW 60,00) to F from the date of the occurrence of the instant accident to June 6, 2018; “The Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds equivalent to KRW 60,00,000 under the pretext of agreement on compensation including future treatment expenses”; “The ground for recognition” is as described in paragraph (1) of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of “Articles 20,21, A” in the part on the ground for recognition. Therefore, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The damages suffered by F due to the instant accident asserted by the Plaintiff were caused and expanded due to the competition between the Plaintiff’s breach of signal signals, the Plaintiff’s fault at the time of the Plaintiff’s U-turn, and the Defendant’s illegal parking negligence.

The Plaintiff paid the F the full amount of KRW 243,67,860 corresponding to the treatment expenses. The Plaintiff’s fault ratio between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle in the instant accident ought to be 40:60. As such, the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, is obligated to claim to the Plaintiff for reimbursement of KRW 146,206,716 (=243,67,860 x 60%) corresponding to the percentage of fault of the Defendant’s vehicle out of the treatment expenses.

3. Determination

A. In order to prevent any danger on the road and ensure safe and smooth flow of traffic on the road, the driver of any motor vehicle has a duty of care not to park in the parking-restricted zone. This cannot be viewed as a place where the normal traffic of the motor vehicle is not impeded by the parking-restricted zone. Unless there are special circumstances, there is a proximate causal relation between the illegal parking and the collision accident if there was no collision accident if there was no illegal parking vehicle in the parking-restricted zone or there was less damage caused by the collision (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da3380, Mar. 11, 1997).