1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business operator who entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”). The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle

B. On August 31, 2016, around 05:10 on August 31, 2016, the Plaintiff’s vehicle maintained the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle parked over two lanes in the same direction and road edges while driving in the direction of Samsung Flucing in the direction of Samsung C. in the same direction.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

The Defendant paid KRW 4,246,430 of the Defendant’s automobile insurance proceeds destroyed by the instant accident, and filed a petition with the Plaintiff for deliberation by the committee for deliberation on the dispute over reimbursement of automobile insurance. On May 15, 2017, the Deliberation Committee deliberated on and decided that the instant accident occurred from the total negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “Deliberation and Determination”). Accordingly, according to the deliberation and determination of the instant case, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-deliberation with the Defendant for the payment of the amount of KRW 4,246,430 to the Defendant, and made a decision to maintain the deliberation and determination of the instant case on June 12, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 2 through 4, Evidence Nos. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant’s vehicle was illegally parked in a state where the two-lanes of the two-lanes near the location where the rapid stacker of the instant road ends without using lights, such as emergency lights, sidelights, and tail lights, even though it was a new wall time accompanied by a dog and storm. Therefore, the instant accident can be deemed that the Plaintiff’s negligence and the Defendant’s driver’s negligence were concurrent. In light of the background leading up to the instant accident and the aforementioned error by the Defendant’s driver.