Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) equivalent to the amount ordered to pay additional amounts under paragraph (2).

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant Company is an insurer who has entered into an insurance contract with respect to liability for damages during Defendant B’s daily life.

B. On June 3, 2019: (a) around 04:17, Defendant B: (b) sealed the Plaintiff’s vehicle parked in front of that vehicle into the access road to the second floor underground level in order to drive his/her own vehicle at the first floor parking lot of Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon; (c) however, Defendant B shocked two vehicles parked at that place by the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the second floor parking lot of underground level (hereinafter “victim”).

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

On September 5, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,648,050 as insurance money after deducting KRW 500,000 of the self-paid cost for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

On the other hand, the Defendant Company determined the damage of the damaged vehicle caused by the instant accident as KRW 13,363,600, and paid KRW 6,727,173, which was calculated in proportion to the F organization, which is the double insurance company, for the liability for damages caused by the instant accident, on September 11, 2019.

(F) The remainder of 6,636,427 won was borne by the F organization). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The following circumstances, which can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the facts underlying the liability for damages and the evidence revealed earlier, that is, the parking lot in which the instant accident occurred is permitted to provide double parking because the parking space is narrow, and when double parking is conducted, vehicles parked in the parking zone can move onto the side of the double parking vehicle. As such, in the case of double parking vehicles, parking is common for dual parking vehicles in a state where it is not an ordinary string string, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was double parking in a state where it is considerably close to the access road of the second underground floor at the time.