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 an automobile insurance contract with C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. Around July 3, 2019: (a) the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle was on the ground at the underground parking lot for the E Department Store in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and entered the underground parking lot from the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle to the underground parking lot; (b) was flick down with the left side part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On July 19, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,080,000,000, which is the insurer with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, subtracting the amount of KRW 5,580,000 from the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

The FSC decided on January 16, 2020 that the negligence ratio between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and Defendant’s vehicle was 3:7.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers for those with serial numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that at the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was discovered that the Defendant’s vehicle was going beyond the median line and was immediately stopped, but the Defendant’s vehicle was driven as it was, and thus, the instant accident was caused by the unilateral negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the instant accident occurred in the course of driving by the Defendant’s vehicle, which was located along the Plaintiff’s vehicle entering the underground parking lot of the department store, and that the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which did not yield the course in the right edge, is more than 50%.

B. The following circumstances revealed based on the above facts of recognition and the evidence as seen earlier, namely, ① Defendant vehicles run along the central line at the department store underground parking lots.