The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

3.Paragraph 3 of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, either in the absence of dispute between the parties, or in the entries or videos of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers).

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract containing self-vehicle damage security agreements with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to E vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. Around 12:40 on July 27, 2019, F, a spouse of C, driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and parked the Plaintiff’s vehicle in front of the Goyangdong-dong G apartment Hedong-dong, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Busan, and then was in conflict with the Defendant’s vehicle that was parked on the left side of the Plaintiff at the time when he was trying to run.

(hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On August 13, 2019, the Plaintiff paid insurance money equivalent to KRW 839,720, excluding KRW 200,000, out of the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

2. Existence and scope of liability for indemnity; and

A. The Plaintiff is asserting that the instant accident was caused by the negligence of the Defendant’s driver, who was parked on the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle and attempted to park without examining the movement of another vehicle located on the rear side and the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle. However, in full view of the facts acknowledged and the purport of the entire pleadings, the instant accident can be sufficiently recognized that the negligence committed by the Plaintiff’s driver and the Defendant’s driver’s attempt to park in a manner that did not properly examine the movement of the other vehicle parked on the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the apartment zone and the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion of exemption from liability is without merit.

On the basis of the above judgment, the defendant vehicle is related to the defendant vehicle.