1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. Basic facts

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

B. Around 02:10 on March 11, 2016, the Plaintiff’s vehicle of the C drivered the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was parked on the second line of the opposite lane beyond the median line, tried to avoid an inferior object on the right side while driving the first line of the road at the speed near the intersection of the sub-section of the C driver’s length, and shocked the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D, which was aboard the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, suffered injury.

C. By April 27, 2016, the Plaintiff paid D insurance proceeds of KRW 1,410,000 in total with medical expenses and the agreed amount, and the said amount is the total amount of damage D.

[Ground of recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Gap evidence Nos. 4-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the defendant's vehicle parked in a parking-prohibited area without using the tail lights and sidelightss at night, it contributed to the occurrence of the accident of this case and the expansion of damages, the defendant asserts that the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff the amount equivalent to 20% of the defendant's fault ratio of the 1,410,000 won jointly exempted from the plaintiff's insurance proceeds and the delay damages.

On this issue, the defendant asserts that there is no proximate causal relation with the accident of this case.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the accident of this case is deemed to have caused the error of the Plaintiff’s vehicle shocking the Defendant’s vehicle, which was parked on the opposite lane beyond the median line, as its main cause.

However, as the defendant vehicle, which is a large cargo vehicle, has parked in the yellow-ray section on the road side where parking is not allowed.