The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. Basic facts

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

B. On June 18, 2019, around 21:05, the Plaintiff’s driver stopped at the edge of the road in the yellow point section in order to obtain a telephone while passing one-lane road in the vicinity of the Geumcheon-gu, Busan. The Defendant’s vehicle driven the remainder of the road in the same direction as the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving, while driving the remaining space of the road in the same direction as that of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Plaintiff’s driver was the front part of the Defendant’s driver’s seat and shocking the part following the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On July 24, 2019, the Plaintiff paid 868,700 won to the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, subtracting from the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle 217,000 won.

[Ground of recognition] The items in Gap evidence 1, 3, 5, 6, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

가. 원고의 주장 원고차량은 비상등을 켠 채 일시 정차가 허용되는 황색 점선 구간에서 잠시 정차하였고, 나머지 도로 공간으로 정상적인 통행이 가능하였으므로, 이 사건 사고 발생에서 원고의 잘못은 없다.

The accident of this case is that the driver of the defendant vehicle neglected his duty at the time of front-time, or caused the failure to drive the vehicle. Thus, the responsibility of the defendant vehicle shall be deemed to be 100%.

B. According to Article 37(1) of the Road Traffic Act and Article 19(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, in the case of a motor vehicle (excluding a two-wheeled vehicle), when the driver stops on the road at night, the tail lights and sidelights as prescribed by the motor vehicle safety standards shall be turned on.

However, according to the above evidence, in particular, the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not turn the tail lights and the sidelights at the time of the instant accident.

In light of such circumstances and the background leading up to the occurrence of the instant accident, the Defendant’s driver’s failure to perform his duty at the time of transfer.