1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”).

On March 29, 2018, around 19:41, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was parked twice in front of 205 Bong-dong Bongdong Cheong-dong, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do. However, the Defendant’s vehicle was in front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and there was an accident that led to a shock of the fronter of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, while the Defendant’s vehicle was in front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which led to a shock of the fronter of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). On April 4, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 73,900 to the Plaintiff’s vehicle repair cost, except for its own charges.

[Based on the recognition, the Plaintiff asserted that the parties to the instant accident was attributable to the total negligence of Defendant 1, since the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant 1’s negligence, by neglecting the duty of follow-up watch while driving the vehicle for parking and neglecting the duty of follow-up watch, and thus, the instant accident was due to the total negligence of Defendant 2.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's vehicle was not damaged due to the accident of this case, and that the accident of this case occurred since the plaintiff's vehicle parked in the fire-fighting zone where parking is prohibited.

Judgment

According to the above facts of recognition, since the defendant's vehicle was parked after the vehicle was parked and neglected the duty of late-time watch while parking, the plaintiff's vehicle was parked later, the responsibility for the occurrence of the accident in this case is on the defendant's vehicle.

According to the statements and images of the evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the plaintiff's vehicle is deemed to have been parked in the fire-fighting zone, but in full view of the purport of the entire arguments, the above apartment parking lot is a parking lot.