The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. Basic facts

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

B. On August 17, 2018, around 22:20, in the vicinity of F in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, there was an accident that contacted the right side of the Defendant vehicle, which was in progress with the lower left side of the Plaintiff vehicle that was parked at the corner of the jun-ro crossing (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On September 20, 2018, the Plaintiff paid the remainder of KRW 5,090,000, excluding KRW 230,000,000, out of the total repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, as insurance proceeds.

On February 11, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for deliberation and mediation of the indemnity fee dispute deliberation committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Deliberation Committee”), and the Deliberation Committee decided on February 11, 2019 that the negligence ratio between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle was 25%: 75%.

E. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on March 6, 2019, which was within the closing date of the instant decision of the Review Committee.

The court of the first instance determined that the Defendant’s amount of indemnity to the Plaintiff was 2,563,00 won [5,320,000 won (230,000 won) x 70%) - 75% - 230,000 won] on the ground that the fault ratio of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle is 25%: 75%, and the amount of adequate repair expenses is 70%, respectively, and the amount of indemnity to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is 2,563,00 won (5,320,000 won (230,000 won) x 70%). [The fact that there is no dispute over the recognition, Gap’s evidence 1 through 7, Eul’s evidence 11

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. First, even though the Plaintiff paid the appropriate repair cost necessary for the restoration of the Plaintiff’s vehicle after the instant accident, the first instance court claimed that the first instance court judged only 70% of the total repair cost as the adequate repair cost. This is unreasonable.

In the event of damage to a motor vehicle due to a review stand or an accident, the repair cost deemed possible.